Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 11

message: This book contains quite extensive material about the subject. An excerpt below (pages 270-3) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that these pages are designed to discuss the subject, but rather, to discuss the article. How do we discuss the article? By researching sources and by describing these sources' viewpoints. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We provide the viewpoints of reliable and verifiable sources. This source can be used to describe an opinion of Messianics, the same way that Carol Harris's book can. Do you see a difference between the two, other than that one makes you, inigmatus, personally uncomfortable? -- Avi 01:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material that could be used 

message: The quote is the quote, you can even see it on Google books. I am uncertain as to the conerted effort to change/modify/re-state a direct quote, other than a desire to mitigate the quote for some reason. Unfortunately, that is not allowed in wikipedia. -- Avi 22:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing wrong with the quote as a quote per say, except that the quote is not accurate in its fact, as clearly I hope to show with other sources, that the clarification should be that we worship Jesus as God - not "and". The quote is a secondary source and not a primary source, thus it can be forgiven, but as stated currently in the article, it would seem better if it was a direct quote from a primary source (say a Messianic book or site). inigmatus 22:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may wish to review Wikipedia:Attribution#Primary and secondary sources and WP:RS#Types of source material. Wikipeia prefers secondary sources. -- Avi 22:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Darn it, Avi, you edit conflicted with me to say that. JoshuaZ 22:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Berkley quote

message: I have re-written the opening and moved Berkley to a new subsection called Jesus. I think that that the lead as it stands, while a bit weak on the relationship between Messianics and Jesus, is passable with the sentence "Jesus of Nazareth, whom they call Yeshua, is both their savior and the resurrected Jewish Messiah." Comments by all are both solicited and appreciated. -- Avi 16:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better, IMHO.  Now the new "Jesus" section can be expanded with contrasting views, without disturbing the integrity of the lede.  P.D. 16:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus in lead and own subsection

message: *Avi, I have a more accurate, and still secondary... and even from a Jewish POV, source that we can quote that would resolve the issue, and I want your thoughts on using this over and against the Berkley source: By The Jewish Daily Forward:  "Other Jews argue that messianics have ceased to be Jews because they revere Jesus as God incarnate, or because they worship a triune Deity." I can agree with this Jewish secondary source's comment about us, and it practically does the same thing as the comment you want to see posted from Berkley, except there is no controversy over Jesus "and" God. I am willing to compromise on using this source instead if you feel it absolutely necessary to still have some sort of Jewish disclaimer in the intro of the Messianic Judaism article to warn unsuspecting Jews that Messianic Judaism is not really Judaism. inigmatus 14:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first source doesn't talk about Messianic Judaism at all, much less conclude that it is a sect of Judaism. The second source says that the Messianic movement believes it is following the practices of the very early Christian movement; it's fine for a section about the beliefs of the Messianic movement. The last source isn't a reliable source, it's the personal website of "Pete Benson". Please review the WP:NOR and WP:V policies  carefully. Jayjg (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise Source

message: This article is literally half footnotes/bibliography/links.  Whoa... ⇔ ChristTrekker 14:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The footnotes are critical to ensure NPOV and proper sourcing. The bibliography can be pruned, but I agree that the external Link(farm) element really, really needs to be severely cut down to scale. -- Avi 14:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I completely understand.  I've just never seen an article of this size with so much attribution before!  Amazing.  ...  If MJ had a decent portal, most of the See Also and External Links could go there, and other MJ articles could just point to it.  At least, I think that's the purpose of portals. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  yikes! 

message: I'd love to see the Identity section expanded, and probably split out into Messianic identity.  I think this would be a good place to expound on the conflict with mainstream Judaism (especially the typical answer to "Who is a Jew?" being "that can vary but a Jew definitely doesn't believe in Jesus"), the variance in styles of observance (a la Jewish denominations), and explain how the modern usage differs from the historical (early believers, Nazarenes, etc).  The section currently has all this, but I think it is very brief and the flow of reading isn't the best.  I'd do it if I were more knowledgable. ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  identity 

message: I think some of the religious claims being made in this article are being made in wikipedia's voice.  The voice needs to shift on some of these claims which are heavily disputed.  jbolden1517Talk 10:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia's voice

message: The Some Messianic believers[34] do not view a relationship with Jews for Jesussimply because Jews for Jesus seeks to turn Jews into traditional evangelical Christians isn't a sentence.  Could someone indicate what was meant?  jbolden1517Talk 11:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jews for Jesus