 | The contents of the Messianic religious practice page were merged into Messianic Judaism#Religious practices on January 2010. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
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.
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.
I reverted various edits by an anonymous editor intended to make it sound like no Messianics are Jewish because they are false statements and added your "while Jews . . ." to the caveat. People need to be careful that their "fix POV" edits don't create false statements.
The {{merge to|Messianic Judaism}} template was placed here because this article is just the same topic as Messianic Judaism all over again. IZAK 08:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- while I agree that the articles are redundant, and should be merged. I feel that there is far too much detail here, that does not add to the value of the article, only it's lenghth, and practices that represent only segments within messianic judaism are generalized to reprersent the whole. Lorem 17:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
STRONG DISAGREE -- MERGE THE MJ MATERIAL TO HERE
- How come nobody complained about "generalizing to represent the whole" for the similar material in the MJ article?
- If you want an overview rather than detail, I suggest putting an overview in the other article. This article is about practices. It's not like the average person can hop in a car, drive ten miles and visit a Messianic congregation. In most cases, if someone wants information in any depth on Messianic practices, this (and my websites) is the only place they can get it. You may be familiar with Messianic practices and therefore feel detail is not necessary, but others would disagree. Better to have more than not enough.
- The Theological Perspectives section is just temporary. The article is supposed to be about practices, not theology. I am looking for a better section title.
- I have recently been working on an extensive set of legal briefs at work that take up much of my time and on doing a major reorganization of the Messianic Prophecy/Prophecies grouping. Once that is done, which should be in about a week, I plan on reworking the MRP article to make it broader, such as describing the music.
- With the exception of about one screenful of "get your bearings" material in Theological Perspectives, the MRP article is limited to practices. Not undocumented history, not who approves of MJ and who doesn't, not other groups, just common MJ practices. Even in the TP section several "theology" topics really deal with which religious books MJ's use.
- Contrary to Lorem's comment, most of the practices described are common to most of MJ. As I have mentioned elsewhere, the "Who's Who" of MJ teach and preach at Baruch HaShem, so we hear from a lot of people literally from all over the world who visit many congregations.
- Also, there simply isn't a heck of a lot of source material. It's not like Messianics can go to Amazon.com and find 200 books on different worship styles, etc. Most of the leaders were trained by the same small group of leaders or people trained by them, so styles tend to be similar.
- Most of the things that are not as widely practiced are mainly because particular congregations are so small they have to meet in someone's house or a local church and therefore they can't afford the normal Jewish things like a Torah scroll. As the congregations grow and get to the point where they can get their own facilities and a Torah scroll, they tend to follow these practices.
- Also, frankly, I gave up contributing to the MJ article because of the continual edit fights that article has. If this article is not merged I will continue to expand it. It can use sections on practice differences due to congregation size, gentile/Jew ratio, etc., non-U.S., etc. If the article is merged I will not be making any more contributions. And if the attitude is, "Big deal, so someone else will," check the edit history of that section. No, they won't. If you don't like the idea of redundancy (and I agree on that), delete the Religious Practice section of the MJ article and link here, instead of merging this into an article most of which has nothing to do with Messianic Religious Practices.
RickReinckens 08:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Rick: What's the point, if they have to be merged? Messianic Judaism is not seperate from its "practices". IZAK 12:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that they should be merged and this article trimmed as per Lorem above. -- PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
(Puedo leer ingles pero no escribirlo.) Me parece mejor tener dos articulos, porque discuten sujetos diferentes. Juan Ramirez
- This translates to: (I can read english but not write it) It seems better to me to have two articles because they discuss different subjects. Antonrojo 01:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
PUT ALL THE PRACTICES STUFF HERE
No one says anything "has to" be merged. That's the point of having the templates--to get the input of the WP community, not just 2-3 people. Also, both "practices" and theology vary significantly in a lot of religions. I'm still trying to figure out when Christians call their clergy "Father", when they call them "Reverend" and when they call them "Minister", and why sometimes their cross has "Jesus" hanging on it and sometimes it doesn't. Somebody in one of these discussions said the the "practices" article is too oriented to how U.S. Messianics do things. Why doesn't that person add sections on practices in other countries?
It also seems to me that the longer these articles are the more attention they will draw. People who are just curious in general won't bother reading a separate "practices" article. Leaving them separate will make the other article a lot shorter.
Think about this . . . having a separate article on practices shows how these people copy Jewish practices. It looks like most of this article is by a guy who admits he is a gentile with training at a Christian seminary and even is the webmaster for Christian sites. He claims he is "messianic" but not Jewish. This gives good examples of their proselytization techniques. If this is watered down and merged into the Messianic Judaism article that example will be lost.
(Also, I looked through the history and it seems like Rick is the only one who attempts to document any sources for alleged practices, which is supposed to be a WP requirement.) -- Judah haNasi 23:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Judah to put the repetitive stuff from the other article in this one. It seems to me better to have them separate. Look at the videos and notes and reference section. If that is added to the other article most of it just doesn't apply, it seems. I guess if it did someone would have already copied a lot of it.
I know that when I attend a wedding or a religious service of some other religion I really don't care much about what the people believe. I want to know how to act and how they will act. Will people be kneeling? Is there some special greeting? Is there some special clothing I should wear or not wear? Are there certain colors I'm not supposed to wear at particular times of the year? Do the women wear hats or scarves? Do you call the clergy Reverend? Minister? Father? Do they have women clergy? Do the clergy wear special clothing? What kind of music do they play? How loud will it be? Will any of it be in a foreign language? Will they give me the words? Is there any special wording that only some people use? Will they take up a collection? More than one? Are you expected to touch certain things? Are you expected not to touch certain things? Will people clap? Do people get annoyed if you talk quietly, e.g., to ask about what is going on? Are people likely to realize I don't belong to their religon? What kind of reaction can I expect? Should I try to pretend I'm "just like the rest of the people here" or tell people I'm visiting? Are there any religious symbols I should not wear?
If I am inviting someone to a gathering where most of the people will be of one different religion, is there anything I need to tell that person so she or he won't be embarrassed or feel uncomfortable? If the person has strong religious beliefs, do I have to warn him or her not to say or do certain things because they contradict the person's beliefs? Do I have to explain any of the wording or activities in advance? What is the person likely to misinterpret or not understand?
Also, when I'm teaching kids about different religions, different countries, etc., generally we describe differences in what people do, not differences in what people believe because it's easier for kids to understand that. This article helps make it clear what people in Messianic Judaism do. If it is merged into the other article and cut down, a lot of that information will be lost. It makes sense that this should be in a religious practices category since that is mainly what it deals with.
I have looked around the Web about Messianic Judaism a little and they seem to have pretty much the same beliefs as evangelical Protestants but the Web doesn't talk much about practices. It's nice to see an article that specifically talks about practices.
Merge the religious practices material here
- I gotta agree with Milton. Awhile back I was involved in some research that required visiting several different denominations of several religions. I felt extremely awkward that I did not know what the people expected. I went to a pentecostal church and at times it felt like a pep rally. They were looking at me like I was weird because I just sat there quietly most of the time. I went to a different church and a woman kept saying, "Amen!" and a few other things during the sermon and people were looking at her like she should shut up. I looked through an article on Judaism and it said to wear a prayer shawl to a sabbath service. I borrowed one from a friend for a Friday night service and the only people who were wearing them were the rabbi and the guy who did the singing.
- As Milton said, if I have to go to an activity of some other religion I really don't care about what they believe, I just want to know how to act and what they'll expect. It's nice to have an article that deals with that specifically.
- I do have some questions about Lorem's comment though. S/he says the practices described are only done by a portion. Well, if you know about different practices, why not expand the article instead of just trashing an editor who actually took the time and effort to research and write an article? I saw the material in the other article and very little of it is documented. You say there is too much detail, but you also say you are familiar with the topic. Other people who don't know a lot about the topic probably want the detail. From what I have seen on the Web, Messianic Judaism seems to be a controversial issue and the big sticking point seems to be specifically the practices. It looks to me like certain Jewish denominations don't like the fact that Messianic religious practices seem to look like non-messianic Jewish religious practices. If that is the case, then that's a good reason to keep the articles separate and leave the detail in the religious practices article. Also, what is Lorem's background? I checked out his/her user page and it says Reinckens created it. (I don't understand why, but whatever . . .) Charles Ulysses Farley 08:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
This is a "Messianic" Jewish subject and should not be subject to Judaism's POV (or to a Christian POV etc). An aricle on Judaism should have a Jewish POV, a Christian article should have a Christian POV, and a Messianic article should have a Messianic Jewish POV. Each article should accurately represent that groups beliefs.
I believe the subject (Messianic religious practices) is 'within the ballpark' of correctly representing the Messianic quadrants' beliefs. I also see it as rather neutral as well as neutral in that it represents various sects of the Messianic Community, as well as fairly mentions mainstream Judaisms view of Messianic religious practices.
Kindly, CowboyWisdom 00:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
(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.
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)
If this article isn't merged with Messianic Judaism, perhaps it should be renamed something like Messianic Jewish practices as not to have a title (Messianic religious practices) that may possibly be confused with the subject of Messianic beliefs within Judaism.
CowboyWisdom 01:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
I'm totally for it, if my opinion counts for anything. Sounds much better.
Extremeleigh
02:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
Today I have reworded a few passages here and there to be more neutral and factual. The NPOV disclaimer is probably superflous at this point, as the article is about as objective as it will ever get.
4 September 2006
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
This article is just another version of Messianic Judaism and should be merged into it. It is now tagged {{ merge to}} IZAK 02:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Messianic Judaism is already too (78kb) long. Messianic Halakha was created to MOVE halakhic information away from the article into a seperate article Mesianic Halakha. See the Wikiproject Messianic Judaism task list for more information. This is a CURRENT task. I am removing merger proposal per previous Talk (which has been archived) which also supports the existence of Messianic Halakha as seperate from Messianic Judaism. inigmatus 03:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Inigmatus: That's not an excuse and you are making things up, as you well know, why did you change [1] the name a month ago from Messianic religious practices on your own, after there had been a consensus to keep it that way? You seem to think that you can move the furniture around and noone will notice. IZAK 05:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was closed: move approved and completed. Consensus was fairly clear, surprisingly. — Doug Bell talk 21:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
Survey
- 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)
- Support I'm not as concerned about the matter of POV or potential misleading since this case seems to be a harder one to mislead on. However, the term seems to a) be a neologism and b) seems to be inaccurate given that even by the intro of the article it describes common religious practices and does not discuss what is theologically believed to be law as such. I would also tentatively suggest that given the recent nature of this move and the non-apparent consensus of it that for decision purposes the original title be considered the default title for interpreting the result of this straw poll.
JoshuaZ
05:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It's not a neologism. It is refered to as "Messianic" Jewish Halakha. See link which explains "Messianic Jewish halakha is rooted in Scripture (TaNaKH and the New Covenant writings), which is of unique sanctity and authority. However, it also draws upon Jewish tradition, especially those practices and concepts that have won near-universal acceptance by devout Jews through the centuries. Furthermore, like most other branches of Judaism, Messianic Judaism recognizes that halakha must be dynamic as well as faithful, for it involves the application of the Torah to a wide variety of changing situations and circumstances." If you want more support, just do a Google search for "Messianic" and "Halakha" inigmatus 19:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose The article has yet to have major review by Wikiproject Messianic Judaism. We have been busy with other articles. We have marked this article for a complete revision. Please read: In Messianic circles, the way of walking out Torah is refered to as "Halakha" - and thus "Messianic Halakha" is the appropriate name on Wikipedia to distinguish Halakha that Messianics practice, versus specifically rabbinic Halakha that rabbinic Jews follow. I disagree with any notion that the article "Messianic Halakha" should list ANY Christian religious practice, as it is my opinion (and the vast majority of other Messiancis) as a Torah-observant Messianic that Messianic Judaism is not Christianity - as defined in Messianic Judaism as a religion that centers on the faith practices of Yeshua and his disciples who are Jewish; and more specifically that we do not celebrate Christmas, Easter, worship on Sunday as somehow a new Sabbath, or eat food that is not kosher. Furthermore, Messianic Halakha has been marked for cleanup in Wikipedia: WikiProject Messianic Judaism to focus the article on specific Messianic Halakha as defined within Torah-observant communities, and the responses within non-observant strains of Messianic Judaism that would object to such halakha. The term "halakha" is not disingenuous to a religion (MJ) whose focus is on Jewish religious practices, which on Wikipedia is simply titled Halakha. Rabbinic Jews don't own the term halakha and Messianic Judaism has a right to refer to its own interpretations of walking out Torah by any term it desires, even it's Messianic Halakha. This dispute then is over the right for Messianic Judaism to use the term "halakha" when another group feels that it is exclusively theirs. I don't believe that this is a valid dispute within Wikipedia article title guidelines, simply because it is clear to anyone that the article's title is Messianic Halakha and not Jewish Halakha or just Halakha. inigmatus 05:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support, because as Inigmatus says they (The MJs) just made this notion (of Messianic "Halakha") up out of thin air -- by definition, Halakha means
Jewish law only, so it's thus counter to
Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms plus
Wikipedia:No original research, plain and simple. Finally from the perspective of Judaism, the Halakha cannot be taught, let alone redefined, by people who cannot understand that Judaism utterly rejects Jesus as a God, or prophet, but rather views him as a renegade or worse, which the Messianics conveniently overlook.
IZAK
05:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I did not say that it was made up out of thin air. I said that the article name was created to differentiate Halakha that Messianics engage in, apart from that of rabbinic Jews. I didn't feel it would help if I created a subsection in
Halakha called "Messianic Halakha" (oh what a firestorm that would be - not that I disagree with the idea) so I created a new article name for it to seperate the two. "Halakha" was not a term that Messianics created out of thin air in comming up a name to describe their way of walking out Torah. Messianics simply refer to their walking out Torah as "Halakha" - but for Wikipedia purposes, I figured I'd add a qualifier to it: "Messianic" Halakha. The qualifer "Messianic" to "Halakha" is all that I added. If it's original research, and the name change is rejected on that ground, then I propose a subsection be created in
Halakha called "Messianic halakha". Either way, "Halakha" as a term is NOT in dispute in Messianic Judaism.
inigmatus
06:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Note The proper Hebrew term for walking would be "Halikha", the verbal noun form. There is a yod after the lamed. Are you sure you are not mixing the two words? --
Avi
06:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hold it Inigmatus, who authorized you to make such major changes to Judaism or to Christianity for that matter? Note: Try not to use the term "rabbinic Jews" it's the way the Karaites refer to real Jews, of which there are only one kind. Someone is either Jewish or they are not...and it's all figured out only according to the one and only Halakha, remember? IZAK 06:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Note The proper Hebrew term for walking would be "Halikha", the verbal noun form. There is a yod after the lamed. Are you sure you are not mixing the two words? --
Avi
06:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I did not say that it was made up out of thin air. I said that the article name was created to differentiate Halakha that Messianics engage in, apart from that of rabbinic Jews. I didn't feel it would help if I created a subsection in
Halakha called "Messianic Halakha" (oh what a firestorm that would be - not that I disagree with the idea) so I created a new article name for it to seperate the two. "Halakha" was not a term that Messianics created out of thin air in comming up a name to describe their way of walking out Torah. Messianics simply refer to their walking out Torah as "Halakha" - but for Wikipedia purposes, I figured I'd add a qualifier to it: "Messianic" Halakha. The qualifer "Messianic" to "Halakha" is all that I added. If it's original research, and the name change is rejected on that ground, then I propose a subsection be created in
Halakha called "Messianic halakha". Either way, "Halakha" as a term is NOT in dispute in Messianic Judaism.
inigmatus
06:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support Halakha has a specific meaning in Judaism relating to Jewish law. This article is not about Jewish law at all (it only vaguely mentions law in the context of kashrus). This article is about MJ religious practices. And I see no reliable sources referring to "messianic halakha", it seems to be a neologism. --
MPerel (
talk |
contrib)
08:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It is refered to as "Messianic" Jewish Halakha. See link which explains "Messianic Jewish halakha is rooted in Scripture (TaNaKH and the New Covenant writings), which is of unique sanctity and authority. However, it also draws upon Jewish tradition, especially those practices and concepts that have won near-universal acceptance by devout Jews through the centuries. Furthermore, like most other branches of Judaism, Messianic Judaism recognizes that halakha must be dynamic as well as faithful, for it involves the application of the Torah to a wide variety of changing situations and circumstances." inigmatus 19:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support per nom. ← Humus sapiens ну ? 09:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Support per nom, by definition, this is PoV. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 20:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Support per all other supporters. -- Daniel575 | (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Jmabel | Talk 20:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Support per nom. -- DLand TALK 21:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Jayjg (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Amoruso 18:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It sure would be nice before the page is moved if we could wait for other Messianics to weigh in on the matter. Seeing as how I'm the only Messianic so far here in the discussion, I doubt that it's fair to say that a true consensus has been reached on moving the page. I'll submit a request for comment on this. inigmatus 19:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- Move for completely different reason. I see no evidence that any reliable sources use this term. As such, we shouldn't have an article on the title. Messianic + Halakha has obvious meaning, but I don't think adequate sources exist to have an article at this title. This is not an issue of misleading; if reliable sources were using the term this would be the proper title no matter what "misleading" concerns there might. Nor is it a matter of PoV; again if reliable sources were using the term we would need to have coverage (here or in the main article) to have a balanced presentation of Halakha. GRBerry 21:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Discussion
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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)
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)
Who wrote the screaming in the definitions section?
So much spam in the references. 80.230.2.179 ( talk) 00:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
| The contents of the Messianic religious practice page were merged into Messianic Judaism#Religious practices on January 2010. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
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.
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.
I reverted various edits by an anonymous editor intended to make it sound like no Messianics are Jewish because they are false statements and added your "while Jews . . ." to the caveat. People need to be careful that their "fix POV" edits don't create false statements.
The {{merge to|Messianic Judaism}} template was placed here because this article is just the same topic as Messianic Judaism all over again. IZAK 08:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- while I agree that the articles are redundant, and should be merged. I feel that there is far too much detail here, that does not add to the value of the article, only it's lenghth, and practices that represent only segments within messianic judaism are generalized to reprersent the whole. Lorem 17:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
STRONG DISAGREE -- MERGE THE MJ MATERIAL TO HERE
- How come nobody complained about "generalizing to represent the whole" for the similar material in the MJ article?
- If you want an overview rather than detail, I suggest putting an overview in the other article. This article is about practices. It's not like the average person can hop in a car, drive ten miles and visit a Messianic congregation. In most cases, if someone wants information in any depth on Messianic practices, this (and my websites) is the only place they can get it. You may be familiar with Messianic practices and therefore feel detail is not necessary, but others would disagree. Better to have more than not enough.
- The Theological Perspectives section is just temporary. The article is supposed to be about practices, not theology. I am looking for a better section title.
- I have recently been working on an extensive set of legal briefs at work that take up much of my time and on doing a major reorganization of the Messianic Prophecy/Prophecies grouping. Once that is done, which should be in about a week, I plan on reworking the MRP article to make it broader, such as describing the music.
- With the exception of about one screenful of "get your bearings" material in Theological Perspectives, the MRP article is limited to practices. Not undocumented history, not who approves of MJ and who doesn't, not other groups, just common MJ practices. Even in the TP section several "theology" topics really deal with which religious books MJ's use.
- Contrary to Lorem's comment, most of the practices described are common to most of MJ. As I have mentioned elsewhere, the "Who's Who" of MJ teach and preach at Baruch HaShem, so we hear from a lot of people literally from all over the world who visit many congregations.
- Also, there simply isn't a heck of a lot of source material. It's not like Messianics can go to Amazon.com and find 200 books on different worship styles, etc. Most of the leaders were trained by the same small group of leaders or people trained by them, so styles tend to be similar.
- Most of the things that are not as widely practiced are mainly because particular congregations are so small they have to meet in someone's house or a local church and therefore they can't afford the normal Jewish things like a Torah scroll. As the congregations grow and get to the point where they can get their own facilities and a Torah scroll, they tend to follow these practices.
- Also, frankly, I gave up contributing to the MJ article because of the continual edit fights that article has. If this article is not merged I will continue to expand it. It can use sections on practice differences due to congregation size, gentile/Jew ratio, etc., non-U.S., etc. If the article is merged I will not be making any more contributions. And if the attitude is, "Big deal, so someone else will," check the edit history of that section. No, they won't. If you don't like the idea of redundancy (and I agree on that), delete the Religious Practice section of the MJ article and link here, instead of merging this into an article most of which has nothing to do with Messianic Religious Practices.
RickReinckens 08:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Rick: What's the point, if they have to be merged? Messianic Judaism is not seperate from its "practices". IZAK 12:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that they should be merged and this article trimmed as per Lorem above. -- PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
(Puedo leer ingles pero no escribirlo.) Me parece mejor tener dos articulos, porque discuten sujetos diferentes. Juan Ramirez
- This translates to: (I can read english but not write it) It seems better to me to have two articles because they discuss different subjects. Antonrojo 01:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
PUT ALL THE PRACTICES STUFF HERE
No one says anything "has to" be merged. That's the point of having the templates--to get the input of the WP community, not just 2-3 people. Also, both "practices" and theology vary significantly in a lot of religions. I'm still trying to figure out when Christians call their clergy "Father", when they call them "Reverend" and when they call them "Minister", and why sometimes their cross has "Jesus" hanging on it and sometimes it doesn't. Somebody in one of these discussions said the the "practices" article is too oriented to how U.S. Messianics do things. Why doesn't that person add sections on practices in other countries?
It also seems to me that the longer these articles are the more attention they will draw. People who are just curious in general won't bother reading a separate "practices" article. Leaving them separate will make the other article a lot shorter.
Think about this . . . having a separate article on practices shows how these people copy Jewish practices. It looks like most of this article is by a guy who admits he is a gentile with training at a Christian seminary and even is the webmaster for Christian sites. He claims he is "messianic" but not Jewish. This gives good examples of their proselytization techniques. If this is watered down and merged into the Messianic Judaism article that example will be lost.
(Also, I looked through the history and it seems like Rick is the only one who attempts to document any sources for alleged practices, which is supposed to be a WP requirement.) -- Judah haNasi 23:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Judah to put the repetitive stuff from the other article in this one. It seems to me better to have them separate. Look at the videos and notes and reference section. If that is added to the other article most of it just doesn't apply, it seems. I guess if it did someone would have already copied a lot of it.
I know that when I attend a wedding or a religious service of some other religion I really don't care much about what the people believe. I want to know how to act and how they will act. Will people be kneeling? Is there some special greeting? Is there some special clothing I should wear or not wear? Are there certain colors I'm not supposed to wear at particular times of the year? Do the women wear hats or scarves? Do you call the clergy Reverend? Minister? Father? Do they have women clergy? Do the clergy wear special clothing? What kind of music do they play? How loud will it be? Will any of it be in a foreign language? Will they give me the words? Is there any special wording that only some people use? Will they take up a collection? More than one? Are you expected to touch certain things? Are you expected not to touch certain things? Will people clap? Do people get annoyed if you talk quietly, e.g., to ask about what is going on? Are people likely to realize I don't belong to their religon? What kind of reaction can I expect? Should I try to pretend I'm "just like the rest of the people here" or tell people I'm visiting? Are there any religious symbols I should not wear?
If I am inviting someone to a gathering where most of the people will be of one different religion, is there anything I need to tell that person so she or he won't be embarrassed or feel uncomfortable? If the person has strong religious beliefs, do I have to warn him or her not to say or do certain things because they contradict the person's beliefs? Do I have to explain any of the wording or activities in advance? What is the person likely to misinterpret or not understand?
Also, when I'm teaching kids about different religions, different countries, etc., generally we describe differences in what people do, not differences in what people believe because it's easier for kids to understand that. This article helps make it clear what people in Messianic Judaism do. If it is merged into the other article and cut down, a lot of that information will be lost. It makes sense that this should be in a religious practices category since that is mainly what it deals with.
I have looked around the Web about Messianic Judaism a little and they seem to have pretty much the same beliefs as evangelical Protestants but the Web doesn't talk much about practices. It's nice to see an article that specifically talks about practices.
Merge the religious practices material here
- I gotta agree with Milton. Awhile back I was involved in some research that required visiting several different denominations of several religions. I felt extremely awkward that I did not know what the people expected. I went to a pentecostal church and at times it felt like a pep rally. They were looking at me like I was weird because I just sat there quietly most of the time. I went to a different church and a woman kept saying, "Amen!" and a few other things during the sermon and people were looking at her like she should shut up. I looked through an article on Judaism and it said to wear a prayer shawl to a sabbath service. I borrowed one from a friend for a Friday night service and the only people who were wearing them were the rabbi and the guy who did the singing.
- As Milton said, if I have to go to an activity of some other religion I really don't care about what they believe, I just want to know how to act and what they'll expect. It's nice to have an article that deals with that specifically.
- I do have some questions about Lorem's comment though. S/he says the practices described are only done by a portion. Well, if you know about different practices, why not expand the article instead of just trashing an editor who actually took the time and effort to research and write an article? I saw the material in the other article and very little of it is documented. You say there is too much detail, but you also say you are familiar with the topic. Other people who don't know a lot about the topic probably want the detail. From what I have seen on the Web, Messianic Judaism seems to be a controversial issue and the big sticking point seems to be specifically the practices. It looks to me like certain Jewish denominations don't like the fact that Messianic religious practices seem to look like non-messianic Jewish religious practices. If that is the case, then that's a good reason to keep the articles separate and leave the detail in the religious practices article. Also, what is Lorem's background? I checked out his/her user page and it says Reinckens created it. (I don't understand why, but whatever . . .) Charles Ulysses Farley 08:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
This is a "Messianic" Jewish subject and should not be subject to Judaism's POV (or to a Christian POV etc). An aricle on Judaism should have a Jewish POV, a Christian article should have a Christian POV, and a Messianic article should have a Messianic Jewish POV. Each article should accurately represent that groups beliefs.
I believe the subject (Messianic religious practices) is 'within the ballpark' of correctly representing the Messianic quadrants' beliefs. I also see it as rather neutral as well as neutral in that it represents various sects of the Messianic Community, as well as fairly mentions mainstream Judaisms view of Messianic religious practices.
Kindly, CowboyWisdom 00:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
(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.
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)
If this article isn't merged with Messianic Judaism, perhaps it should be renamed something like Messianic Jewish practices as not to have a title (Messianic religious practices) that may possibly be confused with the subject of Messianic beliefs within Judaism.
CowboyWisdom 01:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
I'm totally for it, if my opinion counts for anything. Sounds much better.
Extremeleigh
02:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
Today I have reworded a few passages here and there to be more neutral and factual. The NPOV disclaimer is probably superflous at this point, as the article is about as objective as it will ever get.
4 September 2006
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
This article is just another version of Messianic Judaism and should be merged into it. It is now tagged {{ merge to}} IZAK 02:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Messianic Judaism is already too (78kb) long. Messianic Halakha was created to MOVE halakhic information away from the article into a seperate article Mesianic Halakha. See the Wikiproject Messianic Judaism task list for more information. This is a CURRENT task. I am removing merger proposal per previous Talk (which has been archived) which also supports the existence of Messianic Halakha as seperate from Messianic Judaism. inigmatus 03:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Inigmatus: That's not an excuse and you are making things up, as you well know, why did you change [1] the name a month ago from Messianic religious practices on your own, after there had been a consensus to keep it that way? You seem to think that you can move the furniture around and noone will notice. IZAK 05:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was closed: move approved and completed. Consensus was fairly clear, surprisingly. — Doug Bell talk 21:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
Survey
- 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)
- Support I'm not as concerned about the matter of POV or potential misleading since this case seems to be a harder one to mislead on. However, the term seems to a) be a neologism and b) seems to be inaccurate given that even by the intro of the article it describes common religious practices and does not discuss what is theologically believed to be law as such. I would also tentatively suggest that given the recent nature of this move and the non-apparent consensus of it that for decision purposes the original title be considered the default title for interpreting the result of this straw poll.
JoshuaZ
05:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It's not a neologism. It is refered to as "Messianic" Jewish Halakha. See link which explains "Messianic Jewish halakha is rooted in Scripture (TaNaKH and the New Covenant writings), which is of unique sanctity and authority. However, it also draws upon Jewish tradition, especially those practices and concepts that have won near-universal acceptance by devout Jews through the centuries. Furthermore, like most other branches of Judaism, Messianic Judaism recognizes that halakha must be dynamic as well as faithful, for it involves the application of the Torah to a wide variety of changing situations and circumstances." If you want more support, just do a Google search for "Messianic" and "Halakha" inigmatus 19:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose The article has yet to have major review by Wikiproject Messianic Judaism. We have been busy with other articles. We have marked this article for a complete revision. Please read: In Messianic circles, the way of walking out Torah is refered to as "Halakha" - and thus "Messianic Halakha" is the appropriate name on Wikipedia to distinguish Halakha that Messianics practice, versus specifically rabbinic Halakha that rabbinic Jews follow. I disagree with any notion that the article "Messianic Halakha" should list ANY Christian religious practice, as it is my opinion (and the vast majority of other Messiancis) as a Torah-observant Messianic that Messianic Judaism is not Christianity - as defined in Messianic Judaism as a religion that centers on the faith practices of Yeshua and his disciples who are Jewish; and more specifically that we do not celebrate Christmas, Easter, worship on Sunday as somehow a new Sabbath, or eat food that is not kosher. Furthermore, Messianic Halakha has been marked for cleanup in Wikipedia: WikiProject Messianic Judaism to focus the article on specific Messianic Halakha as defined within Torah-observant communities, and the responses within non-observant strains of Messianic Judaism that would object to such halakha. The term "halakha" is not disingenuous to a religion (MJ) whose focus is on Jewish religious practices, which on Wikipedia is simply titled Halakha. Rabbinic Jews don't own the term halakha and Messianic Judaism has a right to refer to its own interpretations of walking out Torah by any term it desires, even it's Messianic Halakha. This dispute then is over the right for Messianic Judaism to use the term "halakha" when another group feels that it is exclusively theirs. I don't believe that this is a valid dispute within Wikipedia article title guidelines, simply because it is clear to anyone that the article's title is Messianic Halakha and not Jewish Halakha or just Halakha. inigmatus 05:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support, because as Inigmatus says they (The MJs) just made this notion (of Messianic "Halakha") up out of thin air -- by definition, Halakha means
Jewish law only, so it's thus counter to
Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms plus
Wikipedia:No original research, plain and simple. Finally from the perspective of Judaism, the Halakha cannot be taught, let alone redefined, by people who cannot understand that Judaism utterly rejects Jesus as a God, or prophet, but rather views him as a renegade or worse, which the Messianics conveniently overlook.
IZAK
05:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I did not say that it was made up out of thin air. I said that the article name was created to differentiate Halakha that Messianics engage in, apart from that of rabbinic Jews. I didn't feel it would help if I created a subsection in
Halakha called "Messianic Halakha" (oh what a firestorm that would be - not that I disagree with the idea) so I created a new article name for it to seperate the two. "Halakha" was not a term that Messianics created out of thin air in comming up a name to describe their way of walking out Torah. Messianics simply refer to their walking out Torah as "Halakha" - but for Wikipedia purposes, I figured I'd add a qualifier to it: "Messianic" Halakha. The qualifer "Messianic" to "Halakha" is all that I added. If it's original research, and the name change is rejected on that ground, then I propose a subsection be created in
Halakha called "Messianic halakha". Either way, "Halakha" as a term is NOT in dispute in Messianic Judaism.
inigmatus
06:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Note The proper Hebrew term for walking would be "Halikha", the verbal noun form. There is a yod after the lamed. Are you sure you are not mixing the two words? --
Avi
06:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hold it Inigmatus, who authorized you to make such major changes to Judaism or to Christianity for that matter? Note: Try not to use the term "rabbinic Jews" it's the way the Karaites refer to real Jews, of which there are only one kind. Someone is either Jewish or they are not...and it's all figured out only according to the one and only Halakha, remember? IZAK 06:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Note The proper Hebrew term for walking would be "Halikha", the verbal noun form. There is a yod after the lamed. Are you sure you are not mixing the two words? --
Avi
06:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I did not say that it was made up out of thin air. I said that the article name was created to differentiate Halakha that Messianics engage in, apart from that of rabbinic Jews. I didn't feel it would help if I created a subsection in
Halakha called "Messianic Halakha" (oh what a firestorm that would be - not that I disagree with the idea) so I created a new article name for it to seperate the two. "Halakha" was not a term that Messianics created out of thin air in comming up a name to describe their way of walking out Torah. Messianics simply refer to their walking out Torah as "Halakha" - but for Wikipedia purposes, I figured I'd add a qualifier to it: "Messianic" Halakha. The qualifer "Messianic" to "Halakha" is all that I added. If it's original research, and the name change is rejected on that ground, then I propose a subsection be created in
Halakha called "Messianic halakha". Either way, "Halakha" as a term is NOT in dispute in Messianic Judaism.
inigmatus
06:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support Halakha has a specific meaning in Judaism relating to Jewish law. This article is not about Jewish law at all (it only vaguely mentions law in the context of kashrus). This article is about MJ religious practices. And I see no reliable sources referring to "messianic halakha", it seems to be a neologism. --
MPerel (
talk |
contrib)
08:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It is refered to as "Messianic" Jewish Halakha. See link which explains "Messianic Jewish halakha is rooted in Scripture (TaNaKH and the New Covenant writings), which is of unique sanctity and authority. However, it also draws upon Jewish tradition, especially those practices and concepts that have won near-universal acceptance by devout Jews through the centuries. Furthermore, like most other branches of Judaism, Messianic Judaism recognizes that halakha must be dynamic as well as faithful, for it involves the application of the Torah to a wide variety of changing situations and circumstances." inigmatus 19:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support per nom. ← Humus sapiens ну ? 09:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Support per nom, by definition, this is PoV. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 20:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Support per all other supporters. -- Daniel575 | (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Jmabel | Talk 20:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Support per nom. -- DLand TALK 21:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Jayjg (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Amoruso 18:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It sure would be nice before the page is moved if we could wait for other Messianics to weigh in on the matter. Seeing as how I'm the only Messianic so far here in the discussion, I doubt that it's fair to say that a true consensus has been reached on moving the page. I'll submit a request for comment on this. inigmatus 19:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- Move for completely different reason. I see no evidence that any reliable sources use this term. As such, we shouldn't have an article on the title. Messianic + Halakha has obvious meaning, but I don't think adequate sources exist to have an article at this title. This is not an issue of misleading; if reliable sources were using the term this would be the proper title no matter what "misleading" concerns there might. Nor is it a matter of PoV; again if reliable sources were using the term we would need to have coverage (here or in the main article) to have a balanced presentation of Halakha. GRBerry 21:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Discussion
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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)
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)
Who wrote the screaming in the definitions section?
So much spam in the references. 80.230.2.179 ( talk) 00:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)