Talk:Jews for Jesus/Archive 3

message: Just to see if I understand this, I assume this see also is at the bottom due to the pronouncement in the Anti-Judaism article that "Christian anti-Judaism" could basically mean any sort of Christianity-based attitude that Judaism is not valid for some reason, and thusly by certain arguments, a "denigration"? I'm just asking because that article seems very unclear on what exactly "Denigration" means, and if it means any position which remotely challenges Judaism, then i'd like to know, because I was contemplating removing it from the see also section. Homestarmy 19:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase "any position which remotely challenges Judaism" is a diplomatic way to express "Nineteen centuries of Christian love". Since JFJ is just another attempt in a long history of attempts to destroy Judaism, Anti-Judaism link belongs here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uhh, i'm sorry, but I just don't see the overt hatred of Judaism here that you'd see from, say, Martin Luther's On the Jews and their Lies. I mean sure, people might say that their actions are hateful, but JfJ sure doesn't seem to think it's hateful towared Judaism, and most people I can think of that were anti-Judaism in the hate-based sort of sense sort of, well, meant to be anti-semites, has this sort of thing ever happened by accident? Homestarmy 22:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who says hatred? It's love, 19 centuries of pure love. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Har har -___-. Homestarmy 23:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know what this label implies, but IMHO it is a non-sequitur. First, even if we ignore for a moment the long and sorry history of deicide accusations, blood libels, forced conversions (note: always one way), inquisitions, etc., are you saying that Judaism is actively attacking Christianity? Second, are JFJ genuinely engaged in a dispute with Judaism? From what I've seen, they are only interested in replacing it with their version (which doesn't differ from Christianity, but the JFJ insist that the two are somehow compatible). What is so different from Luther's "We ought... not to treat the Jews in so unkindly a spirit, for there are future Christians among them."? ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jews for Jesus has nothing to do with any of those things. At least, i'm fairly certain it doesn't.....Homestarmy 13:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nobody implies that JFJ are responsible for "those things". But I would understand if someone says that they are a link in the same chain. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: are you saying that Judaism is actively attacking Christianity?   Well, if *all* Jewish groups strongly oppose what they call a Christian group, then....yeah.   Justforasecond 15:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wrong. It is Judaism that is under attack here. What can be more natural than all Jewish groups strongly opposing attempts to destroy it? I bet you would resist too if you were in their place. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Judaism see-also

message: :"For most American Jews, it is acceptable to blend some degree of foreign spiritual elements with Judaism. The one exception is Christianity, which is perceived to be incompatible with any form of Jewishness." As I understand this, you can be a Buddhist, pantheist, Wiccan or even Muslim and still be considered a Jew, but as soon as you express any degree of Christian belief you are an outcast. Is that right? If so does it strike anyone else as odd? DJ Clayworth 18:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, but I would agree that elements of even Islam (e.g. Sufism) are infinitely more compatible with Judaism than Christianity. - Abscissa 19:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Some degree of foreign spiritual elements" is not the same as converting to Islam. Anyway, what is your objection; is the quote inaccurate? Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think DJ is trying to point out that the sentence is not very clear on what "to blend some degree of foreign spiritual elements" actually amounts to. Like what, celebrating a few holidays from other religions, or worshipping towared Mecca, or where does the line get drawn here? Homestarmy 20:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's been stated clearly; what's the difference? Jayjg (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If you mean the difference in my statement between celebrating other holidays and worshipping towareds mecca, the first can be done in a "well, hmm, this other practice is sort of fun" sort of sense, while worshipping specifically towared's mecca is a change in how one directly honors God. (Or so i'd think). Perhaps this would be better, does the line get drawn at, say, using a meditation garden, or hosting statues of paganism all throughout one's home and venerating them? Homestarmy 20:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I meant, does it relate to article content in any way? Jayjg (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean DJ's quote? Well, I assume it's part of the article somewhere, and once again, it's apparently a part of the article which is rather vauge. It also makes me wonder who determines what is "acceptable" for American Jews; some universal American Jewish synagogue type thing, or popular consensus, or are there some statistics on this? And then of course, does the next line refer to Christianity as a whole, or going along with the above to mean "some degree of Christian beliefs"? Homestarmy 20:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I see. So you haven't read it. Jayjg (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhh, it's right there where DJ quoted it. You know, "For most American Jews, it is acceptable to blend some degree of foreign spritual elements...."and so on and so forth. What, am I missing something in between the lines there? Homestarmy 21:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh wait, no wonder I couldn't find it in the article just now, it's given as a reference at the bottom. Well, it's a really lousy reference then, whether it's from someone at Cambridge or not :/. Homestarmy 21:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a good reference for the purpose for which it is used. Jayjg (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I'm pretty sure that anyone born Jewish is considered "Jewish" by the Law, no matter what they do or what other religons they adopt... that said, I am pretty sure that refrence is not supposed to suggest that anyone reverse his circumscions or convert to Islam, Christianity or to be a Jehovah's Witness, etc. V. Joe 16:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What?

message: If there is any doubt that JFJ is "Christian" or "evangelical" there are plenty of sources to back it up.  Here are a couple, and there's many more if this isn't enough:
*Washington Times: "Dozens of evangelists with Jews for Jesus will hit the streets of Washington starting next week for a monthlong campaign at Metro stops, downtown areas and college campuses aimed at the Washington area's 215,000 Jews....More than 600 people took an evangelism-training course last month at the 10,000-member McLean Bible Church to prepare for the "Behold Your God" campaign....It also will be the largest evangelistic effort in Washington in the 31-year history of the San Francisco-based Jews for Jesus, targeting the nation's sixth-largest Jewish community....McLean Bible Church, home to 150 to 200 Jews who have converted to Christianity, will be the hub of the evangelistic effort. Seventy-five of these converted Jews attended an evangelistic workshop in the spring to prepare for the campaign"....'I love doing this,' said Mr. Solomon, the former chaplain of Jews for Jesus' yearly evangelism campaigns in New York and a veteran street evangelist...."
*Arutz Sheva: "The Christian evangelical group, Jews for Jesus, which aims to convince Jews that the Christian faith does not conflict with Judaism..."
*Christianity Today: "Jews for Jesus (JFJ) recently finished a 66-month evangelistic campaign with a month-long New York finale....For follow-up, Jews for Jesus is working with a number of local evangelical churches, including Calvary Baptist Church, Brooklyn Tabernacle, and Christ Lutheran church....San Francisco–based Jews for Jesus visited 55 cities around the world during its $18 million Behold Your God campaign. The group is forming plans to evangelize in Israel in 2007."
--MPerel ( talk | contrib) 08:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So would the Black Hebrews be considered Jews because they claim to be, even though "obviously your regular Jews think not"? Just wondering how far you want to carry this argument.--Mantanmoreland 14:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It is not Wikipedia's place to make such judgements. We record the facts. It is a fact that Black Hebrews claim to be Jewish and we record that.  The same approach should be taken here. DJ Clayworth 15:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The same approach is taken here. J4J's claim and the criticism and antagonism that has caused. NPOV does not require hiding unpleasant facts.--Mantanmoreland 16:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  Plus, since JFJ via Christian churches embark on massive campaigns to "convert" Jews who follow every branch of Judaism, just why exactly do they need to convert Jews from Judaism, if they are so compatible with Judaism?  They play a lot of semantic games and this is why there are so many sources that point out JFJ's deceptiveness at their pretending to be both Christian and Jewish.  --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 17:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point, MPerel. A part of this dishonest semantic game is to avoid advertizing it as a religious conversion. Hey, embrace Jesus, it's the most Jewish thing after all! ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Not even looking at whether it's a fact or not, the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth. The people who seem to hate them agree their evangelizing and are Christian mostly, JfJ does not deny that they are Christian, I think there was even some page somebody found on their website calling themselves Christian, and their entire point they are trying to make is that one can "Believe in Jesus and be a Jew", in other words, basically to be a Christian and a Jew at the same time. Validity of this perspective aside, they don't claim that they are just Jewish, merely that they are Jewish. If we couldn't state this sort of basic thing in an introduction, Wikipedia would be a very large collection of blank pages. Homestarmy 00:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is a good question: why don't the JFJ state clearly that they are a Christian group? But once in a while, and not to the Jews, they do admit it. Here is what Brickner said in 2002 press release in response to American Catholic bishops statement that "Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with God," and that "campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church": "This is an attack on Jews for Jesus and other Christian groups who hold to the uniqueness of Christ." The highlight's mine. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Catholic Church has every right to express their opinion, and that statement should probably be reported in this article...  not to state as an objective fact that J4J is an "unacceptable organization" or whatever, but that the Catholic Church expressed their opinion.  --SpinyNorman 04:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is amusing to see that after seeing an evidence that even JFJ admit being another Christian group, SpinyNorman removed both "Christian" and "evangelical" from the intro and replaced it with "Jewish". ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian evangelical organization

message: Someone removed a statement about Christianity being monotheistic, claiming it was 'original research'. I put it back. I hope I don't really have to provide references to show that Christianity is monotheistic. DJ Clayworth 17:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see below. Jayjg (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal

message: DJClayworth, you have actually used admin revert to revert my removal of some original research you placed in the article, specifically this:
Jews for Jesus, and most Christians, would disagree with this viewpoint. Christianity considers itself a Monotheistic religion and enitrely compatible with the view of God presented in Jewish scriptures.
This unsourced argument is clearly meant to refute the material directly above it, wherein Paul Johnson (a Christian!) states that the split between Judaism and Christianity was inevitable as a result of Christianity's insistence that Jesus was both God and man. Not only does the material you have inserted not directly address Johnson's claims (that the split was inevitable), but even worse, it introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position. This is explicity forbidden in the original research policy. In light of this, would you mind removing your original research? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I saw a problem myself with your edit DJ, it said that "Christianity considers itself...." when actually, Christianity doesn't "consider" anything, it's people who consider things :/. I hope you don't mind that I changed it. However, although it isn't really sourced now, it could certainly hypothetically be sourced, but so far I really can't find anything that isn't from JfJ itself backing up JfJ's exact viewpoint on things; there's too many critical sites hogging all the google search results :/. Homestarmy 18:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a good point, and I would have no objection to a change like "Christians believe...". DJ Clayworth 18:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's certainly intended to refute something, and that is not allowed under the original research policy. You need to find someone else who makes this argument, in the context of Jews for Jesus. This is an article about Jews for Jesus, not Christian theology vs. Jewish theology. As such, it needs to cite what Jews for Jesus (not the generic "Christianity") specifically says on topics, and then it needs to quote what critics of Jews for Jesus say (or vice versa). Jayjg (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If refutation is not allowed, then all of the statements trying to refute JFJ's claim to be Jewish have to be removed. Nor should there be any need for this to be in the context of JFJ. That would be like having to prove that Republicans don't believe in a flat earth by finding specific references in the context of the Republican party. JFJ clerly believes in a Trinitarian God, and asserts that this is compatible with Judaism.  You might like to start with this and this. DJ Clayworth 18:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Refutation is allowed if the argument is sourced and specific to the topic, which (in this case), is Jews for Jesus. The statements about Jews for Jesus not being Jewish are specifically about Jews for Jesus. In other words, these are arguments that others have made about Jews for Jesus, not arguments that specific editors here have made about them. This is the essential difference between original research and cited arguments. Jayjg (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the claim that "One of the most important Jewish principles of faith is the belief in one God and one God only with no partnership of any kind", is relevant ot JFJ then surely it is relevant to point out that JFJ disagree with it. DJ Clayworth 18:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim is relevant because the quoted sources refer to it in relation to Jews for Jesus. If you want to cite (not invent) a counter-argument made in relation to this claim and Jews for Jesus, please do so. Jayjg (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It is true that, as with any content in this article, this sentence should have some citation and therefore be clearly attributed to a source, but you can say things concerning opposing sides without the article actually taking a side one way or another. However, I gotta admit, i'm not entirely certain the point this sentence is trying to make actually is a real response to the sentence above it, Johnson isn't even trying to say Christianity is polytheistic or soemthing, is he? Homestarmy 18:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and I have removed the whole "what most Christians think" business, as it is totally gratuitous and is definitely OR. --Mantanmoreland 18:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with what is there now. DJ Clayworth 16:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of [[WP:NOR|original research]] 

message: Seems reasonable to me. May I ask why anyone objects to it? The only issue there is that it is arguably too weak a statement, presumably if everyone calls a group Christian and the members themselves do it isn't clear to me why we can't call them that. But if this will stop the edit warring... JoshuaZ 21:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This editor has edit warred on this page before however, and most editors who were part of the discussion objected to this of course. (Plus, I think paradox has been blocked several times already....) Homestarmy 21:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree. It seems that the consensus is that JFJ is indeed a Christian org. Those few who deny this should be dealt with according to WP:NPOV#Undue weight. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homestar's compromise version 

message: Not to imply that the article is perfect: surely it could and should be improved, but I don't see any open dispute that was not addressed. Shall we untag it? ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the tag because all the edit warring seems to have died down and I think that there isn't anything left under dispute. - Abscissa 13:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is still under dispute?