Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 9

message: First I'm amazed. The article has actually survived. Sure the talk page has grown tremendously, as was to be expected, but I like how the new format is handling the issues of content now, more so than just handling issues only. (the prior version could only manage to do and often got locked up because of edit wars on the issues, rather than content). I encourage all editors to add their knowledge to the article, striving to keep it substantiated and referenced, so that one day we can submit this article for candidacy as a WP Featured Article.
On a second note, the article is beginning to bulge. Specifically the Theology section. I wish to begin the discussion of creating a seperate Messianic Judaism Theology article, by linking it to a new Messianic Judaism Portal to address the expansion of information within the realm of Messianic Judaism. A portal will be needed soon, and I invite fellow Messianics (and other editors who are not Messianic) to discuss if a portal at this point could be useful to expand the information about Messianic Judaism even further on Wikipedia. Please see the Messianic Judaism template's talk page to discuss what the template should include or exclude. inigmatus 04:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Creation of a Messianic Judaism Portal (and whew, the article has survived so far!) 

message: I think it might be more appropriate to use "Jesus" rather than "Yeshua" this article as well as other articles. The reason I suggest this is that it's a name more people are familiar with. To the uninitiated reader, the question would be "Who the heck is Yeshua?" whereas if we used "Jesus" that question doesn't exist. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 12:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest the idea because, for example, the article on Moses is titled "Moses", not "Moshe" or "Moshe Rabbeinu". The article about Maimonides is titled thus, rather than "Rambam", "RaMBaM" or "Moshe ben Maimon". I think it may be a valid goal to make the article easier for the uninitiated to read by using the most commonly-used name of a given person (in this case, Jesus) wherever possible. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 21:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, use the standard English name Jesus on this page, ישוע on the Hebrew MJ page, Jezus on the Polish MJ page, etc. That seems to be the norm for wikipedia articles. TRWBW 01:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's important to remember that Messianic Jews do not own this article. This article belongs to the Wikipedia community and therefore must conform with WP:MOS. Moreover, using the name "Yeshua", which the vast majority of readers will be unfamiliar with, in contrast to Jesus, which the vast majority of readers will be familiar with, is against policy. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 20:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "Yeshua" in this and related articles 

message: The Theology section of Messianic Judaism has exploded in content (inigmatus jumps up and shouts YES & amen!!!!) so much so that Messianic Jewish theology has been created siphon new content into it. From there, anything that is related to Messianic Halakha can be summarized and the majority of halakic content can be moved to the Messianic Halakha.  Agreed? We also need a consensus to determine what information in the current Theology section needs to be parsed down. I would like to aim for a summary of content, with specifics provided in the main article. Can someone help wikify this concept? inigmatus 15:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theology section needs to be reduced 

message: Ok after much contemplation, rather than trying to coodinate this growing category from Talk:Messianic Judaism how 'bout we do it from our own WikiProject page! Editors are encouraged to sign your name to the list and get active in driving content for Messianic Judaism on Wikipedia. Go check it out: Wikipedia:WikiProject Messianic Judaism inigmatus 19:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The WikiProject: Messianic Judaism has been Created! 

message: Do you think this article has what it takes to become a Wikipedia featured article? What should we do to improve it, what needs to be done, and what will you do to help it achieve Featured Article status (WP:FA?)? inigmatus 17:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at any point in the near future. FAs have to be really really well written under the current definitions, and this article just isn't up to the very high threshold that has been set by the FA committee. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 20:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you kidding? This article is neither very significant nor well written. No offense, but as far as religions go, there are dozens of small religions like Santeria or Baha'i or Druze or Sikhism that have 100-1000 times the membership. As an article, it is too wrapped up in POV conflict to be considered a good wikipedia article, let alone an exemplar. TRWBW 21:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input. Let's work on making it FA then. inigmatus 00:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You must be joking. :D This article has seen some improvement, but it is still extremely rough around the edges and needs plenty of improvement. Its factual accuracy is hardly sufficient. I would give the article a 2 out of 10. Hopefulyl, when I make changes to the article for its improvement (and they will be small and gradual), you will keep an open mind and your best interest wil be how well it serves the factual accuracy. Thanks & shalom. 12.65.216.68 20:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help. Please feel free to register a username with Wikipedia so you can make regularly noted contributions. Feel free to join the WikiProject for Messianic Judaism too! inigmatus 04:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article Pre-Candidacy Discussion 

message: Alright, I am finally back as Zorkfan, which means it is acceptable for me to make major edits and comments once again. Plenty of work to be done, but at least the contours of an article eventually acceptable to be submitted as a feature article/good article are beginning to form. To give the other editors a better idea of what Messianic Judaism IS, I have created a short list of groups that are not Messianic Jews and have virtually no affiliation with the Messianic Jewish movement. I do not mean to offend you if you fall under any of the following, but if you do, you aren't a MJ:
Hebrew Christians: In the face of a growing and maturing Messianic Judaism, the Hebrew Christianity that Modern MJ actually emerged parallel to in the 19th century is virtually dead as a movement today. There's not much explanation due here: a Messianic Jew is usually an ethnic Jew, believes that Y'shua of Nazareit is the first appearance of the Mashiach of Israel, and practices Judaism (it's a two-millenium old tradition over 1/2 as old as Judaism itself going back to the twelve talmudim of Y'shua and the grassroots following of thousands he had in Judea, and the Nazarene sect that lasted for a few centuries after. From about 400 CE to the last century, of course, Messianic Judaism was essentially nonexistant in any form). A Hebrew Christian, on the other hand, is by necessity an ethnic Jew that practices the Christian religion, period at end of sentence. There is not a real crossover or much potential for confusion here. The idea of putting up a Christmas tree, eating pepperonis on your pizza, or pretending like Sunday is the Sabbath is anathema to an observant Messianic Jew.
Jews for Jesus: If Messianic Judaism has an Achilles weakness, this is the one, because there is a true lack of outspokenness in the movement about the simple and essential fact that Messianic Jews and the "Jews for Jesus" missionary group have no connections and are mutually exclusive. Don't be misiformed, please! There is virtually no connection or overlap between Messianic Judaism and the JfJ group, and any similarity is almost certainly superficial, and JfJ certainly is not the face of any sector of MJ, as many actually believe. Rabbinic Jews often approach MJ with the misguided belief that the opposite is true, possibly due to superficiality and the overt name. Jews for Jesus has only a single actual ethnic (though non-Jewish) Jew in its leadership, ordained baptist minister Moishe Rosen. So I guess even JfJ's name can really be seen as false advertising. Virtually every Rabbinic Jewish refutation I have read for Messianic Judaism refers to the evangelical Christian Jews for Jesus missionizing organization and Messianic Judaism in the same sentence or context. Either they don't know the simple facts before setting out to write a respectable paper or they don't care if it's false leverage. Jews for Jesus is, at best, an evangelical Christian group that may use an aesthetic or a veneer of Judaism to fulfill goals, and at worst, an organization almost entirely comprised of non-Jews that actively seeks to assimilate Jews and remove their Judaism wholesale, doing mildly in one way what Hitler did in another. More Messianic Jews need to realize that JfJ not only isn't moving even remotely in the same direction as MJ's goals and beliefs; it may be its most dangerous opponent in the long run.
Anti-Torah Groups: Maimonides' ninth principal of faith: "We believe with complete faith that this Torah will not be exchanged nor will there be another Torah from the Creator, Blessed is His Name." The Torah is the holiest part of the many holy Jewish books. No Torah = no Judaism. What can be defined as Jewish is at least halfway proportional to the actual existant level of Torah-basis and observance. So a "Messianic Jew" that claims it is non-normative and unnecessary for a more intimate relationship with G-d is not only a Hebrew Christian at best, but is in fact in active opposition to core beliefs of the writers of the Tanakh, the B'rit Chadasha, Y'shua and all his talmidim (Rav. Sha'ul included and especially), and the Nazerene sect. Telling a Messianic Jew not to follow the Torah is like telling a Muslim that the Five Pillars are unnessesary for Islam.
Trinitarians: Contrary to the popular belief, most Messianic Jews DO NOT hold the non-Scriptural Christian invention that G-d (who's supposed to be, you know, immeasurable, supremely ineffible, and omnipresent) exists as three unique and equal persons as a belief (the Christian trinity also makes no real sense to me, but that is irrelevant). Worse yet, this ties back into anti-Torah, as it goes against arguably the most basic part of the most holy part of THE Holy Scriptures, the Shema in the Torah. Adonai Eloheynu, Adonai Echad. The L-rd our G-d, the L-rd is ONE. Not somehow three unique, autonomous dudes. Most Messianic Jews instead believe that HaShem is indeed an immeasurable, supremely ineffible, and omnipresent existance in accordance with all Jewish understanding, and that how he reveals Himself to humanity can be described in three general ways: Avvi (Father), Ruach HaKodesh (Spirit), and Son, Scripturally. They're not beholden to some ecumenical, supersessionist, anti-semetic, anti-Messianic Jew Roman edict.
Those that attempt to pronounce the Tetragrammaton as part of their doctrine: Observant Jews (including the Messianic ones) hold G-d in such high esteem that they dare not say His tetragrammatical name in conversation. They prefer just G-d, Adonai, Eloheim, HaShem, or sometimes when writing the abbreviation YHWH, but that which should not be pronounced and can no longer be assuredly pronounced reliably because of loss of the original pronounciation, is NOT pronounced by Messianic Jews. But someone who actively and shamelessly attempts to pronounce the the name of G-d as part of DOCTRINE? The Sacred Name movement is neither Judaism nor Messianic Judaism; in fact it fits under the cult umbrella by most standards. 
Anyone that teaches that the Moshiach is somehow equal to G-d: This sort of also fits under the Trinitarian category. Maimonides Principal of Faith 3. "We believe with complete faith that the Creator, Blessed is His Name, is not physical, and is not affected by physical phenomena, and that there is no comparison whatsoever to Him". Nothing, including the Moshiach, is equal or supreme to G-d in any way in Judaism. All things are ultimately OF G-D, and some things are considered holy and pristine BY G-D (such as Eden, the serapheim, the Temple, and of course the Moshiach, who I believe is Y'shua). All else is non-belief (which I respect) or idolitry (which shouldn't be respected, see Noahide.org).
Anyone who claims that the Moshiach did away with a part of the Torah as a teaching: Like all of the above, no Messianic Jew really believes this. Why? Because in Judaism, the Moshiach is the ultimate human example of the Torah in practice and principal, the Torah "made flesh". He can't therefore possibly abolish it, contradicting everything the Scriptures say prior! And the argument of "the purpose of the Torah was just to show us how much we needed Jesus". Crock. How does the Jewish Moshiach therefore be the ultimate champion of a codice of ultimately what NOT to do? The Torah tells the children of Israel to follow it for ALL THE DAYS THEY EVER EXIST, and NOT to assimilate into another system of thought, and NOT to try to be like any of the others. Y'shua HaMoshiach repeatedly stated that overtly with statements such as "until Heaven and Earth pass away, not one jot nor tittle of the Torah will fade" as well as "I come not to remove the Torah of Moshe and the Prophets, but to reinforce them". and the statement often incorrectly stated as "Christ is the end of the law for everyone that believes", actually correctly translated roughly from either Koine or Judeo-Aramaic as "The Messiach is the aim of the Torah for everyone that trusts". Because Messianic Jews view Y'shua of Nazereth as Moshiach through Tanakh prophecy rather than the common Christian concept of "He is G-d the human because he is, and because G-d can do anything he wants even if it flies in the face of everything His Scriptures say prior, the Moshiach will free us from the 'bondage' of G-d's very own instruction!"
Once again, I mean to offend noone. Everyone is beloved to me. I just wrote this out because if the Messianic Judaism project is going to continue and develop into something great, all the editors and contributors should understand what MJ isn't. Shalom. 12.64.66.179 02:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zorkfan, thanks for voicing your views. Your views on the authority of the Torah I believe are consistent with the rest of Messianic Judaism. I of course believe that the Messiah is YHVH as revealed throughout the Tanakh, and I think this is the majority belief of Messianics. I think the belief that the Messiah can not be YHVH is one error that Rambam regurgitated when he drafted the 13 principles of faith, and I also think that it's a view that rabbinics have promoted all the way since at least the time of Yeshua, for Yeshua was condemned for blasphemy for making himself out to be God, well after he did what he could to prove to the Sanhedrin that he was the Messiah. Forgive me if I've read you wrong, but it seems that your brand of Messianic Judaism seems to be to be an example of those that seem to deny the deity of Yeshua. I believe this opinion is the extreme fringe of those who call themselves "Messianics" and as such, I don't think this kind of POV should be promoted in the general article as a mainstream opinion - since it is not. You are of course welcome to create a sub section in the Theology section (and also in Messianic Jewish theology) to explain more of your viewpoint. I think other Messianics editing this article will agree with this. inigmatus 05:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When did I ever say I do not believe that the Moshiach is divine? I DO believe that the Moshiach is divine! See the following here, where it is impressive how much Talmud and Pharasaical commentary they do use in the short paper: http://about-torah.org/Teachings/UniqueSoul.htm The Moshiach is divine, but he is not G-d. The ultimate human realization of G-d, perhaps, but not G-d. Messianic Judaism has had a lot of trouble casting off the last bits of Protestant and trinitarian rediculousness that may cloud its ability to see their beliefs through an intimately scriptural and Jewish perspective (which, if the synagogue is authentic, is that of "US", not "them", see the hashivenu link). As for Maimonides' thirteen principals, whatever Rambam believed, the principals themselves make no reference to either the divinity or non-divinity of the Moshiach, so yes, for Messianic Jews, those principals are and should be vibrant and re-affirming of beliefs they already hold (with reservation to the 12th one modified with an understanding that Yeshua of Nazareth was Moshiach come as Suffering Servant). I actually believe that modern Orthodox Pharasaic Judaism is in fact a strong departure from the days of the Tabernacle/Temple: with the absence of the Levite Priesthood and G-d's dwelling on Earth, I suppose the writers of the Talmud felt that they needed to come up with lots of new, useless rituals (many that aren't even related to a Torah Mitzah, even though Pharasaic commandments are supposed to be fence, or "just to be safe" commandments) to fill that void in Judaism. Being required to put on your shoes in a certain order every day is as scriptural as Catholics holding the rediculous belief that the Pope is infallible. Nonetheless, every Talmudic commandment that DOES relate to a mitzvah in the Torah, one SHOULD do their best to keep it, as it makes one a more observant Jew, because it is a valuable cultural remnant, and the Moshiach also commands it. I believe it is something like: "Do everything the Pharisees instruct you to do (even that they, being hypocrites, do not as they instruct), for they sit upon the seat of Moshe". So it's up to you, I guess, how, if, and when a cheeseburger is OK to eat. The holidays section seems a little rough around the edges and may need some niptuck, if you don't mind. Shalom, and I hope you had a good Sabbath too, Inigmatus. 12.65.42.19 00:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Messianic Judaism is NOT 

message: I was the one who redrafted the article, and I was the one who in the new draft started out by saying that Messianic Judaism is a religion. I had meant to use the term "religion" in a neutral sense - where the casual reader would be led to see that it's a religion, and not in a separation sense in that it is distinct from from Judaism or Christianity - as that is a debatable issue. I would think that to describe Messianic Judaism as a "movement" then I would encourage the development of Messianic Judaism (movement), in which we could split information out of Messianic Judaism which relates to the modern movement itself. This is what I love about Wikipedia. If a page is needed, then the response is organic - a page is created, knowledge is increased, and the public served. Messianic Judaism IS a religion if compared to Islam or Hinduism. Compared to Judaism or Christianity, I would say that it's not, and that it is more of a reform movement within Judaism, and a roots movement within Christianity. For now though, I don't think it improper for Karaite Judaism to describe itself as a religion, just as Orthodox Judaism is also a religion, or Reconstructionist Judaism is one as well, that is, in the neutral/public/reader sense of the word "religion". In defense of my original work (yes I admit some portions of the article is original work, but most of it is now referenced externally) The intention was not to separate Messianic Judaism from Judaism or Christianity in my use of the word "religion." If someone would like, we can clarify that it is a movement, but then would it be necessary to change the article's title, and if necessary to change the title, then why not have two articles - one for the historical religion, and one for the modern movement? In short, I think if someone would like to go through the trouble of creating Messianic Judaism (movement) then I would consent to reinforcing the "movement" aspect of the idea, but in Messianic Judaism the faith and its practice IS encyclopedically a religion. inigmatus 07:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Whether or not MJ is a unique religion is debatable, but it's definitely a religious movement. Also, those numerical estimates of number of adherants are no longer accurate. And the movement is based on Jewish history and culture AS WELL as the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and the links at the top gave people a mistaken impression that MJ is a fusion of Judaism and Christianity. These were all reasons why I slightly modified the introduction, but PinchasC won't stop reverting it anyway! And then yesterday I was almost finished with a major re-edit of the theology section when Firefox crashed. I'm honestly about to burst into tears, it is really so overwhelming how corrupt the staff at wikipedia has been to me. 12.65.162.148 14:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movement or Religion? 

message: In an effort to summarize the Messianic Judaism article, and to encourage further expansion of relevant information, please visit the new article to see what information can be transferred from the main Messianic Judaism article into the more movement-specific article, Messianic Movement. Guidelines have been proposed in Talk:Messianic Movement. inigmatus 17:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Messianic Movement]] article created 

message: " that claims to have at least 47,000 followers and 280 congregations worldwide as of 2006.[1] [2] "
Neither one of those cites (both added by PinchasC , as seen in this diff refers to these numbers. I can't  find ANYTHING in the first cite that even talks about numbers of congregations. Until and until someone can find HARD , VERIFIABLE data on EXACT denomonation and membership counts, does anyone have a problem with the old "with tens of thousands of adherants and hundreds of congregations worldwide" line? --Shrieking Harpy......Talk|Count 17:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who posted the figure. It can be found in the citations provided. inigmatus 19:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion regarding numbers in intro 

message: There are two additions I would like to add that I think would be relevent to the article is:
Under the "Scriptural Commentary" sub-topic I would like to add other commentary authors. Between the sentences in the last paragraph starting with, "David H. Stern...." and "Some in evangelical Christianity..." I would like to add, "Other noted New Testament commentary authors include: Joseph Shulam, Tim Hegg, Daniel Thomas Lancaster, and Stuart Sacks." 
Under the "Grafted-In Theology" sub-topic I would like to add at the end is, "One major proponent of Grafted-In theology is First Fruits of Zion ministries.  Major GIT writers/authors and leaders include Boaz Michael, Tim Hegg, Daniel Thomas Lancaster, John McKee of TNN Online, Ariel Ben-Lyman and Mark McClellan of  Kehilat T'nuvah, and Rick Spurlock of Bereans Online.org"
:: Be bold. Do it. However, I'd remove those external links.  --ElaragirlTalk|Count 01:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, just do it. I actually am a member of Kehilat T'nuvah, as I am Ariel ben-Lyman's talmid (student). I'd say keep the links in unless consensus disagrees. So far, I don't see why these can't be external links. inigmatus 02:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I just wanted to make sure I met the consensus as I knew that this page was under heavy scrutiny and controversy. Also, since I am new at this I wanted to make sure my wording was proper, although I do expect some edits. Inigmatus, I highly appreciate Ariel's weekly commentary as well as his new audio commentary. I also understand him to be a very unique gentle individual. I am sure you think just as highly of him as I do.Jamie Guinn 04:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and kept the links as I think they help establish needed references of the named individual's positions that the reader can check out for themselves. Jamie Guinn 04:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objections to the following minor additions? 

message: MJ is not Jews For Jesus. JfJ is, to put it politely, antithetical to everything MJ is about. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 21:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT STICK JEWS FOR JESUS REFERENCES IN THIS ARTICLE!