Talk:Messianic religious practice

message: My background is listed in the article Source section. The "Who's Who" of the Messianic Movement preach and teach at Baruch HaShem. In 5 years of extensive study & regular attendance I have never seen or heard that term. Just because it may be an accurate translation of the English term does not mean it is commonly used by Messianics. The only term I have seen or heard as a substitute for trinity is triunity.
:RickReinckens 02:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of HaSheloosh info 

message: I have changed it from "People who practice Messianic Judaism do not consider themselves Jewish." to "Gentiles who practice Messianic Judaism do not consider themselves Jewish, while Jews do who practice it do."  In my eight years at Congregation Beth Yeshua, and being a Messianic Jew myself, I would say that I and the Jews at my synagogue very much consider ourselves to be Jewish.
:Lord Elessar 267 14:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RickReinckens 23:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the Caveat Section 

message: After seeing this there are many problems from a Jewish POV and the article is highly misleading. Example problems: "Working" on Shabbat; Not dressing modest; etc. All of which are problems from the written Torah. ems 06:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above seems to be the only stated reason for the POV tag that hasn't been fixed. Since the discussion is rather abstract, a list of specific types of POV statements and some examples would make this a lot clearer. Absent that information, I'll remove the POV notice since vague POV claims cannot be corrected and because the consensus here seems to be to do so. Antonrojo 01:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: (For those of you who don't speak "ebonics", "props" is short for "propers", i.e., "proper" recognition.)
PinchasC, thanks for removing all the stuff about "Torah-observant gentiles" and scripture references regarding the theological bases, etc., added by an anonymous editor.
There are very, very, very few Messianic gentiles who consider themselves to be "Torah-observant" in the sense described. I have met hundreds of Messianic gentiles and I can't think of even one who would describe himself/herself as "Torah-observant". Wikipedia NPOV guidelines require that extreme-minority views are not supposed to be discussed in an article unless the article is specifically on that extreme-minority view. Whoever made all the additions about "Torah-observant Messianic gentiles" is trying to make this sound like a small but growing trend in MJ when the truth is that it just isn't.
Also, the article is about religious practices, not about theology. I am still looking for a better title for the "Theological perspectives" section, which is intended just to provide a basic "orientation" for gentile readers.
:RickReinckens 02:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Props" to PinchasC 

message: I find the article as it stands to appear rather factual and seems to be worded to pretty much cover the beliefs of the various Messianic sects. It is my thought that the 'neutrality and factual accuracy dispute' notice could come down.
I do wonder about the circumcision statement though. Today the heart is what is circumcised. Also, what is the differance between a Torah-observant Messianic congregation and one that does not have that label?
Perhaps the use of the 'sacred names' by a few Messianic groups should be mentioned?
The extra spaces perhaps could come out from between the entries under the "Caveat" heading since the text is bulleted?
CowboyWisdom 23:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A critique... 

message: "However, a majority of Messianic congregations believe the kosher laws were discontinued, based on various New Testament verses they claim allude to their abolishment, and as such, both Jews and gentiles are not obligated to keep kosher, nor are the dietary laws enforced in congregational gatherings."
I take issue with this for the same reason that I take issue with any of my students' papers that use "the majority of" or "most."  Unless the writer has a survey showing that more than half believe something, it is not a factual statement.
In this instance, I don't think it's fair to say that more than half of all Messianic congregations believe that kashrut has been abolished.  Certainly, it's not a UMJC belief.
----
I agree, and changed the word 'majority' to 'some'.
CowboyWisdom 19:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kashrut section 

message: What in the world is this saying?  First you have "Jewish conversion is not possible", then you have a reference "in order for Jewish men to join".  Huh?
I expect that a Jew who joins with us will soon become "zealous for Torah", and bring his life in line with its requirements.
NathanZook 03:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circumcision of Jewish Men? 

message: I believe with the revision of Messianic Judaism to its current state, that the merger notices can be removed. It seems to be in the opinion of the editors of Messianic Judaism to keep Messianic religious practices seperate from Messianic Judaism simply because of the sheer volume of detail, although an acceptable summary of the most important and commonly used halacha is explained in Messianic Judaism.  I propose that we consider revamping and renaming Messianic religious practices to Messianic Halakha and have the section in Messianic Judaism repoint to it both before and after a short halakha summary of the major halakha that is followed. Does anyone else concur? My goal is to eventually link and create enough quality articles so that Messianic Judaism can justify having its own portal on wikipedia. inigmatus 06:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename Article to Messianic Halakha 

message: In my extensive experience, I believe there is a consensus in the Messianic community.  In general, we don't eat nonkosher animals.  At gatherings, it would be considered shocking and outrageous for someone to bring pork or shrimp.  (A pie with lard in the crust wouldn't be unheard of simply out of ignorance.)  However, the vast majority don't pay any attention to whether any individual chicken or cow is slaughtered according to Jewish law... therefore only a small minority actually keep "kosher."  I've heard many people say they keep "Biblically Kosher" and what they mean is they don't eat nonkosher animals.  Very few Messianics care a whit about mixing milk and meat in any way, and gatherings are never specified as "dairy" picnics or "meat" onegs.  
I'm not ready to write this up but maybe I will if there's a consensus on it here.
Extremeleigh 02:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kosher/Kashruth 

message: As discussed in prior Talk in Messianic Judaism and Messianic religious practices, and to better correspond to the new Messianic Judaism template, Messianic religious practices was moved to Messianic Halakha to help focus this article on halakhic information. Please move basic/general theology information in this article to the new Messianic Jewish theology page. inigmatus 04:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to not have a large consensus. Furthermore, the term "Messianic Halakha" seems to be a neologism. I would tentatively suggest a move back. JoshuaZ 03:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Messianic representation on Wikipedia is small, therefore the consensus was small, but represented the majority of Messianic editors. In addition, there was no dispute by non Messianic editors at all to the move. At this time, I believe this article would require a consensus to be changed back. inigmatus 04:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Messianic editors are not the only editors concerned with these topics. To be blunt, that's a bit like if the creationists wanted to move Flood geology to True geology and it was justified that the messianics wanted to do so. (And yes, I know this example is more extreme than what has occured here but the basic point remains. Consensus should be among Wikipedians not among Wikipedians sharing a specific point of view). Also, it would be appreciated if we did not have a move war here. JoshuaZ 04:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I acknowledge this. Please lets discuss major changes like this BEFORE editing. It's the only way to prevent warring. Your analogy doesn't fit because Messianic Halakha sets it apart from Halakha. Let's stop moving, and let's keep discussing. Let's cool off for a bit please, and see what others might have to say. inigmatus 04:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regarding the flood geology analogy- I'm not arguing that there might not be good reasons for the move that was simply a comment about the notion of consensus. Now, as to the other issues, while this might make sense, many of the listed practices have nothing to do with halacha per se but rather with general cultural practices. For example the article states that "Messiancs display Menorahs and Stars of David rather than crosses." (I haven't made up my mind what title for this article makes more sense although the matter of a neologism strongly concerns me).  JoshuaZ 04:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renamed to Messianic Halakha to fit template 

message: This article is just another version of Messianic Judaism and should be merged into it. It is now tagged  IZAK 02:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to Messianic Judaism 

message: Messianic Halakha → Messianic religious practice — With a significant amount of Christian religious practice, and disavowal from all normative strains of Judaism, the use of the term "halakha" is disingenuous and potentially misleading. Avi 04:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
*Support With a significant amount of Christian religious practice, and disavowal from all normative strains of Judaism, the use of the term "halakha" is disingenuous and potentially misleading. -- Avi 04:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *This isn't about a disagreement between Jews and Messianics.  Halakha has an established meaning.  Calling the article "Messianic Halakha" would be like having an article on "Messianic Eucharist" and describing it as a supper where everyone in the neighborhood comes together to eat hot dogs, and details all the different colored clothes people wear at these suppers.  It would be a neologism and not at all related to "Eucharist" which already has an established specific meaning.  The title is unencyclopedic and misleading. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments:
Halakha is a disingenuous and improper term to use. "religious practice" is much better, and less POV, in light of the many Christian elements. -- Avi 04:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It might be POV, but let's discuss such changes first before making them, ok? Give me a second to collect my notes and post a response. inigmatus 04:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced the term is POV any more than Conservative Halakha is POV. Most Orthodox would see the term as an oxymoron and might call it disingenuous as well. I'm more concerned that a) the term appears to be a neologism and b) the article discusses general religious practices not just messianic religious law. Indeed, even the parts about law mainly talk more about what tanachic rules are kept and how they are kept among the general community rather than a statement of what theologically speaking the messianics believe the laws actually are. JoshuaZ 04:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think "Messianic Halakha" is POV either. I also agree that the current article needs major clean up to present halakha that is only specific to Messianic Judaism, with only a summary and links to specific halakha that is shared by other groups. But I also don't think it needs to be moved to "religious practices" until then. It is on the Project page as a priority task, but currently the small editing team is overwhelmed. I'll see if I cant resolve some of these issues with Messianic Halakha in the comming days. In the meantime, I encourage more input from others in this discussion before a final decision on renaming the article is made (and hopefully some additional responses by other Messianics other than myself). inigmatus 06:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, there is only one Halakha just as there is only one God, one Torah and one Children of Israel. This is all about Monotheism remember (unfortunately even the Monotheism article doesn't appreciate that belief in only one God means just that: Belief in one God) and according to Judaism that one God gave one Torah to the one Jewish people which should not be so complicated to follow. The trouble is that people want to make over God/Judaism/The Torah/Halakha in "their own (selfish and self-absorbed) subjective image" so they project their own perspectives (what Wikipedia calls "POV") onto God/Judaism/The Torah/Halakha etc. So now, to be accurate there could be an article about Conservative Judaism and Halakha or Halakha as interpreted by Conservative Judaism, but one shouldn't lose sight of the reality, fact, and truth, that there is only one Halakha (with all its facets and literature) just as there is only one Sun and one Earth (in our solar system at least.) IZAK 06:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Could we please keep our personal theological opinions over the nature of halachah and such out of the discussion? JoshuaZ 20:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JoshuaZ: Which part is "personal opinion" -- are there more than one Halakhas? Or is there one Halakha with various views of it? That's all I'm saying. The rest is obvious, that in Judaism there is only one God, and one Torah and one Halakha. Not rocket science and not a "personal opinion" either. IZAK 19:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The part that is personal opinion is the part about which one is Halakha.  Your last sentence was the worst offender, but if I removed all sentences containing personal opinion from your comment I'm not sure I'd have anything left but the signature and timestamp.  And we do have Conservative Halakha already, so we already have precedent for Wikipedia having more than one Halakha article.  21:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Inigmatus: It would be nice if the real Jewish Messiah would come as well, but Wikipedia can't wait... IZAK 19:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: :Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
*Support With a significant amount of Christian religious practice, and disavowal from all normative strains of Judaism, the use of the term "halakha" is disingenuous and potentially misleading. -- Avi 04:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *This isn't about a disagreement between Jews and Messianics.  Halakha has an established meaning.  Calling the article "Messianic Halakha" would be like having an article on "Messianic Eucharist" and describing it as a supper where everyone in the neighborhood comes together to eat hot dogs, and details all the different colored clothes people wear at these suppers.  It would be a neologism and not at all related to "Eucharist" which already has an established specific meaning.  The title is unencyclopedic and misleading. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Add any additional comments:
Halakha is a disingenuous and improper term to use. "religious practice" is much better, and less POV, in light of the many Christian elements. -- Avi 04:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be POV, but let's discuss such changes first before making them, ok? Give me a second to collect my notes and post a response. inigmatus 04:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced the term is POV any more than Conservative Halakha is POV. Most Orthodox would see the term as an oxymoron and might call it disingenuous as well. I'm more concerned that a) the term appears to be a neologism and b) the article discusses general religious practices not just messianic religious law. Indeed, even the parts about law mainly talk more about what tanachic rules are kept and how they are kept among the general community rather than a statement of what theologically speaking the messianics believe the laws actually are. JoshuaZ 04:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think "Messianic Halakha" is POV either. I also agree that the current article needs major clean up to present halakha that is only specific to Messianic Judaism, with only a summary and links to specific halakha that is shared by other groups. But I also don't think it needs to be moved to "religious practices" until then. It is on the Project page as a priority task, but currently the small editing team is overwhelmed. I'll see if I cant resolve some of these issues with Messianic Halakha in the comming days. In the meantime, I encourage more input from others in this discussion before a final decision on renaming the article is made (and hopefully some additional responses by other Messianics other than myself). inigmatus 06:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, there is only one Halakha just as there is only one God, one Torah and one Children of Israel. This is all about Monotheism remember (unfortunately even the Monotheism article doesn't appreciate that belief in only one God means just that: Belief in one God) and according to Judaism that one God gave one Torah to the one Jewish people which should not be so complicated to follow. The trouble is that people want to make over God/Judaism/The Torah/Halakha in "their own (selfish and self-absorbed) subjective image" so they project their own perspectives (what Wikipedia calls "POV") onto God/Judaism/The Torah/Halakha etc. So now, to be accurate there could be an article about Conservative Judaism and Halakha or Halakha as interpreted by Conservative Judaism, but one shouldn't lose sight of the reality, fact, and truth, that there is only one Halakha (with all its facets and literature) just as there is only one Sun and one Earth (in our solar system at least.) IZAK 06:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Could we please keep our personal theological opinions over the nature of halachah and such out of the discussion? JoshuaZ 20:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JoshuaZ: Which part is "personal opinion" -- are there more than one Halakhas? Or is there one Halakha with various views of it? That's all I'm saying. The rest is obvious, that in Judaism there is only one God, and one Torah and one Halakha. Not rocket science and not a "personal opinion" either. IZAK 19:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The part that is personal opinion is the part about which one is Halakha.  Your last sentence was the worst offender, but if I removed all sentences containing personal opinion from your comment I'm not sure I'd have anything left but the signature and timestamp.  And we do have Conservative Halakha already, so we already have precedent for Wikipedia having more than one Halakha article.  21:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Inigmatus: It would be nice if the real Jewish Messiah would come as well, but Wikipedia can't wait... IZAK 19:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: :Many, if not most, Messianics consider the Bible to include the same books that Protestants accept as divinely inspired, although this is a matter of great debate in the Messianic community.
I'm qualifying this as conservative Protestants. Many, if not most, Protestants do not consider the Bible to be "divinely inspired", and very many Protestant religious figures use the Apocryphal texts as teaching tools. - Che Nuevara 01:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "divinely inspired" Bible 

message: This page has one use of G-d, as is traditional for most branches of Judaism, but it also has one use of YVNH, which is decidedly not. This appears inconsistent, especially because the latter is the transliteration of the actual Name, and the former just a reference. What is the customary practice?DGG 16:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the tetragrammaton

message: So much spam in the references. 80.230.2.179 (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  One big spam page