This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I just wanted to inform the community here that I, as a Messianic believer am currently redesigning the article Messianic Judaism based on the input in this community of what is needed, and most importantly, attempting to align the article to a more NPOV. It will be a back to the drawing-board redesign of the page and its content, with 90% of the article drafted from scratch using various sources both on the old page, and new sources not yet listed. I ask for your patience, and when it is published - for your input. I'm tired of seeing the Messianic articles a mess, and as a long time wiki contributor, and long time Messianic believer, I feel I have the qualifications to rewrite the article based on what I know of Messianic Judaism. I will submit my revision in the full knowledge that it will be mercilessly revamped and changed, and I expect vigorous debate on the issues I present. Hopefully I can design the sections so as to minimize the desire for entire page rewrites, and so seperate the objections from the one side versus the other. In the meantime, perhaps we need to start a new page called Jewish objections to Messianic Judaism and so provide an outlet for the vast majority of editors that make major changes to the article without consulting here first. inigmatus 19:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Inigmaus, perhaps it would be better and result in less conflict, if you suggest a outline on the talk page describing how you envision the section changes. That way we can discuss how the article will be change before you put a lot of work into it. Jon513 12:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You can view the work in progress User:Inigmatus/Messianic Judaism revision. Feel free to discuss this revision below. Keep in mind that it's a rough draft. The final version I present will be a lot more cleaned up and referenced. My plan is to draft the article in this layout using my own words and those of my sources, and then incorporate text from the old article into the appropriate sections. Once I've published it, I expect people to make modifications to it as per standard wiki proceedure. I have yet to decide how I want to sectionalize objections, but I hope I'm being NPOV enough to where such sections are not needed as much. What do you think of my proposed outline? I know the my text is slightly off NPOV, but that will change. I just needed filler. Any thoughts on the User:Inigmatus/Messianic Judaism revision page? inigmatus 15:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

While I applaud the intent and effort you put into this revision. I must say that it shows that it a lack of historical knowledge, and a bias toward the "evangelical pole" within the messianic movement. Also the article contains Christian Evangelical as well as Messianic Jewish Jargon. I don't want to discourage you from your efforts, but I think what you have at the moment is as far from your intended goal as the current article. I do hope that you continue with the effort though and enlist the feedback of Credentialed scholars within and the messianic movement, and the religious academic community as a whole. Maybe if I have time I will comment later on the particulars within the revised article. Nistar

Thanks for your input. I'm still at the development stage of laying a foundation for what I want to see talked about in the different sections, using filler of my own words. I haven't added references yet, nor have I have added information in the original article yet. When I am satisfied with inserting my own views (its currently major POV right now since I am attempting to draft it all in my own words, from my own perspective) in the filler to help me crystallize an idea of what I want talked about in each section, then I'll work on adding other POVs to help make it more NPOV. Bear with me, and I appreciate your comments as it progresses. If you have ideas on the arrangement of sections and their subsections, I'm all for it. Personally I think the original article just needs a major cleanup from scratch based on a systematic approach to its information delievery via sections. If you have the right foundational sections, the article can grow more maturely and its current issues can be resolved because then everyone would have an outlet. I am borrowing heavily from other religious pages and their design for their sections, notably from Judaism and Christianity of course. :) inigmatus 05:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to a stickler for the rules, but the revision does not belong there. You should move it to your user page (using a subpage) and AFD the article. See Wikipedia:Subpages. I have not read the article yet, but I will give you my feedback soon. Jon513 21:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you do, please stop deleting properly sourced information and inserting unsourced POV instead. I'm speaking to you in particular, Nistar. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

And I'm saying the same thing to you Jayjg Nistar 18:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have read the revision and I see no improvement whatsoever over the current version. Jon513 21:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Nistar, it's vandalism to take sources and have them say things that they don't. I've quoted the sources correctly. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have quoted the sources correctly, And for the most part using their own words, and tried to represent the intention of that source, that does not constiturte vandelism Nistar 19:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you're playing games. You don't even know what is on those pages, and you've removed their characterizations of the movements. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

ok if you object than i will remove the use of that quotation, please refrain from vandalising the whole aricle becuase of on objection 12.218.144.90 19:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Jayig is the one who introduced that source so he doesn't object to it. He objects to my using it to point out that shapiro said that messianit judaism is a form of judaism. Jayjg, I will admit I only have second hand knowlege of the book. Nistar ( talk · contribs).

So please do not revert until you can show that Jayjg is wrong, and stop this from becoming an edit war. JFW |  T@lk 20:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Nistar, how can you quote a book that you haven't even read? That's game-playing. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop playing games, Nistar. I've produced sourced information from reliable sources regarding Messianic Judaism; you have either removed it, or changed what the sources say, along with introducing all sorts of other unsourced POV into the article. Your game-playing is unhelpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have introduced information that information that was either sourced or was previously in the artlicle and restored it with a request for citations, i believe this information is nessary to have a clear vies of what messianic judaism is. I have not removed reliable sourced information, i have removed only unsourced information or information that is there is no game playing involved, only an attempt to creat accurate NPOV information that is usefull to the readers of this artlicle. Nistar 21:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You keep removing sourced information; I've looked at the sources, referenced them, including page numbers. When you remove that and insert obviously POV and unsourced statement even in the lead: "composed of faith groups that are mainly attended by ethnic/cultural Jews." What's more, you do not use [[WP:RS|reliable sources]. All of that is game playing. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have userfied the revision to User:Inigmatus/Messianic Judaism revision, as personal revisions should not be in the main namespace. I have explained the move to User:Inigmatus. JFW |  T@lk 20:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. Everyone can access my revision here: User:Inigmatus/Messianic Judaism revision - feel free to comment on the order of my new sections in this Talk page section as my work right now includes ordering the sections as such that the main article can finally have the frequency of its edit wars die down. inigmatus 04:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I will be working on finalizing my draft tonight. I'll also attempt to do my best to include material from the original article (as well as tons of references), in more approriate sections. I would ask that the edit dispute be resolved and the article unlocked so this new version can be built from. If people disagree with the LIST of sections of my draft, please let me know as I will eventually ask that on that merit alone that the article be allowed to replace the current one, so then everyone has a place to insert their referenced POV on the issue. By doing so I believe we will eliminate most, if not all NPOV disputes with the article, as well as end the edit disptue so we can all contribute to its development again. inigmatus 14:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is progressing smoothly. I am in the process of gathering my sources and assimilating information from the original articles Messianic Judaism and Messianic Religious Practices. Please check out User:Inigmatus/Messianic Judaism revision if you haven't already. Feel free to start reviewing it adding your input here. I hope to submit this article revision to a consensus vote in this talk page sometime within the next few days, in order to completely replace the original article. What I need are your ideas for appropriate sections. Those sections that can be split off into their own articles (like Messianic Halakha) I hope to present the consensus summary and then reference the reader to those expanded articles. Let me know what you think. It will soon be time for a vote on this. inigmatus 03:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the sources of the current version, and looking at the originals, the current version does seem accurate to the sources quoted (at leastthe first paragraoph - it will take a while to try and verify each claim in each paragraph), although I have not been able to get my hands on the Carol Harris-Shapiro book yet. -- Avi 21:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Great, and I was just about to update the Rausch citation. -- Avi 23:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The whole perspective of how the article begins is wrong. Messianic Jews for the most part do not identify with Christianity. The article seems to be written from a Christian or Jewish anti-missionary perspective. Only one faction of Messianic Judaism uses Christian terminology and approach such as Jews for Jesus. (Some Messianic Jews even disagree with Jews for Jesus).

The original church was made up of only Jews, Messianic Jews. Christianity is a branch off it by the ministry of the apostle Paul. Today's Messianic Judaism sees itself as a revival of the original Messianic Judaism and its Hebraic roots, and not Christianity.

The article should be written from a Messianic Jewish perspective only to cite that a faction identifies with somewhat of a Christian identity and use of Christian terminology.

Latter note: It is fair to say however that evangelical Christian churches such as the Assemblies of God played a role in the rebirth of Messianic Judaism. Though the movement has separated itself for the most part from Christianity, it still has friendly relations.

Another thought: Christianity is built on the foundations of the original Messianic Jewish community of 2000 years ago. Messianic ministries offer many teachings and often speak in churches to remind them of the Jewish roots of their heritage.

Thats my 2c worth... CowboyWisdom 16:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is a good directory resource link:

• Open Directory Project - Messianic Judaism

The article should be written in such a way that it is unclear to the reader where to author's sympathies lay ( Raul's razor) Jon513 18:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The best resource for information on Messianic Judaism are found at various ministry, fellowship, or association web sites. Their articles and especially online publications are a fresh source of up to date facts. Here are some main MJ sites:

• Messianic Jewish Alliance of America. (This is the largest Messianic Jewish organization worldwide).
• Jewish Voice magazine archive.

CowboyWisdom 03:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Messianic Times newspaper
• also... for Messianic doctrine, check Adat Eytz Chayim. - SHLAMA 09:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That synagogue picture looks like Baruch Hashem in Dallas. Is that Baruch Hashem?? I could be wrong but it sure looks similar.

That beins said, CowboyWisdom, they are working on the article to remove the so-called anti-missionary point of view held on there. Please be patient... User:rivkaRebecca, who hasn't time to log in from this pc. 209.136.211.32 18:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I visited the Messianic synagogue north of Dallas several years ago. CowboyWisdom 18:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That is DEFINITELY Baruch Hashem. Thanks; I'll be going this Shabbat, because of that picture, lol. Rivka 19:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the article should be written from a neutral point of view, not "from a Messianic Jewish perspective", which would be completely against policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Being written from a neutral POV means not reflecting the AUTHORS point of view. It does not preclude accurately presenting, what the SUBJECT defiines it's point of view ( or points of view , in the case of a compound subject such as messianic judaism) as being. Lorem 07:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I believe that, judging from the outcry in the Messianic Community, the page is currently not coming from a NPOV. It's a very unfriendly page, whereas any other religion on this site has a seemingly perfect, nonbiased page. This page is against us, plain and simple. So inigmatus, since you are currently working on the page, please be sure to make the article as neutral as possible. As you can see, we'll all be watching.... Rivka 22:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to read the WP:NPOV policy; it doesn't mean what many people think it means. Everything that goes into a new article must comply with Wikipedia's three content rule, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. There appear to be very few reliable sources on this topic, which makes it more difficult. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

To follow up on Jay's comment, I'll quote a very pertinent paragraph from WP:NPOV (emphasis added is my own):

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

For example, that means that there must be accurate and fair representation of what the Messianic community's own self-perception is, together with the Christian and Jewish perceptions. The fact that Christians view Messianism different than Messianic practicioners view themselves does not make that a violation of WP:NPOV. Same goes for the Jewish persepective. Now, to have only the Messianic perspective, or only the Jewish persepctive would be a violation. -- Avi 00:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Avi, according your argument the article on Judaism would need to have the Nazi's view of judaism, Islam's view of judaism and the Catholic churches view of judaism to be NPOV. The article on Judaism does not , and need not reflect the judgments of outsiders, as to what Judaism is, to be NPOV. The same is true of Messianic Judaism. Messianic Judaism is a belief system ( or more accurately a group of commonly identified belief systems), and like all belief systems, it is defined by the adherents of that belief system. To accurately report, what a group with a belief system, believe about themselves, is not a voilation of NPOV. However, to present any information, whether true or false, with the intent of influencing someones judgment of that belief system, whether positively or negatively is POV even if multiple conflicting POVS are represented. Lorem 07:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Lorem's statement. Rivka 13:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

While is should be friendly enough for a Christian (or non-Christian) reader, the article is about Messianic Judaism and not "A Christians View of Messianic Judaism". It can always interject a secondary Christian side view. Why use the name 'Jesus' repeatedly when most Messianics uses Yeshua (or a few sects Yahshua). Yeshua should be used throughout with an explain that it is the Hebrew name for Jesus (in the first use of the word).

It starts out wrong

Quote: "Messianic Judaism refers to a group of loosely related religious movements which combine Christian theology with Jewish religious practice". Theology comes from the Bible and the Bible isn't Christian theology! It was written by Jews.

I suggest a rewrite should say something like...

Messianic Judaism refers to a group of loosely related organizations which combine new covenant Biblical theology with Jewish religious practice".

CowboyWisdom 00:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The writers of the New Testament are not classically considered Jewish in historical hindsight, although they were more than likely born into the Jewish faith. Please clarify this for me, do messianic practicioners believe that Jesus was the messiah but not christ? Being that christ means messiah, one who believes Jesus was the messiah perforce believes in a "Christ"ian theology. Not what is perceived as Christian today perhaps, a closer representation of what original pre-Pauline Christianity is perhaps, but Christianity nonetheless. -- Avi 00:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree.

Avi. David H. Stern (himself a Jew), states in the introduction to the Complete Jewish Bible this:

As quoted:"The New Testament Is a Jewish Book. However the time came for the restoring the Jewishness of the New Testament. For the New Testament is in fact a Jewish book --by Jews, mostly about Jews, and for Jews as well as Gentiles."

CowboyWisdom 02:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, many practicing Christians are also Jewish; as you know anyone whose mother is Jewish is Jewish, if your mother's mother's mother was Jewish, then even though your other seven ancestors are Christian/Moslem/Bhuddist, it matters not, so to say that since someone is "Jewish" it defines the Jewish approach is a bit disingenuous. The Messianic approach is that they are Jews, as you bring from Mr. Stern. The traditional Jewish (which means about every denomination of Judaism that resembles what we call Judaism today) approach is that it is not. Both sides need to be represented based on WP:NPOV. The New Testemant is not a Jewish book according to the past 2000 or so years of traditional Jewish responsa. We can cite Mr. Stern who thinks it is so; I'm sure we can also cite a few hundred scholars, Jewish and Christian alike, who disagree strongly with Mr. Stern. -- Avi 02:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The introduction is correct because it cites reliable sources. "New covenant Biblical theology" is a POV neologism. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

the so called reliable source you quote: "Religious Tolerance.org calls Messianic Judaism “A faith group with an Evangelical Christian theology" is mearly the title of a link on a link page of a non-autoritive and marginally reliable webpage. And yet you felt totally justified deleting an authorative quote from a leading recognized Messianic theologion: Stuart Daureman. "Messianic Judaism is a Judaism, and not a cosmetically altered "Jewish-style" version of what is extant in the wider Christian community.". I fail to see any basis for your evaluation of reliable sources, other than to deam any source you agree with as being reliable, and any source you disagree with as beiing unreliable. This is entirely in violoation of NPOV and RS policy. I however have found a quote that is undeniably authorative and which I plan to introduce when the article is unlocked ""Messianic Judaism is a movement of Jewish congregations and congregation-like groupings committed to Yeshua the Messiah that embrace the covenantal responsibility of Jewish life and identity rooted in Torah, expressed in tradition, renewed and applied in the context of the New Covenant." - From the statement affirmed by the Delegates to the 23rd Annual UMJC Conference on July 31, 2002. If you were to removed that quote, there would be no doubt that your intent is to vandelize the article. 12.218.144.90 17:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not accurate to say that Messianic Judaism uses Christian theology. What Christian churches celebrate the feasts\festivals or Hanuka? Historically, Christianity and its Bible stem entirely from Jewish and Jewish (Messianic) New Testament roots.

I do not not believe the first reference gives an accurate view of Messianic Judaism to start an article with. Readers should get an accurate overview of Messianic Judaism before interjecting outside views or secondary points about the group.

Being "neutral" first of all means to correctly represent a topic with (unbiased) facts and references. 'Other views' or 'opposing views' should not be the focal-point.

CowboyWisdom 12:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I quote:

It is not accurate to say that Messianic Judaism uses Christian theology. What Christian churches celebrate the feasts\festivals or Hanuka? -- CowboyWisdom

Which Jews believe that Jesus was Christ? I think that applying "Christ"dom or "Messiah"dom to Jesus places one in the "Christ"ian camp. Original, pre-Pauline Christianity, perhaps, but Christianity nonetheless. Messianic practicioners are perhaps most close to original Judeo-Christians, but to say that the New Testament is a book of Judaism goes against 2000 years of Jewish tradition before the mid 1800's when modern Messianism began -- Avi 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Cowboy, to begin with, Hannukah is a minor Rabbinic festival, not a matter of theology. On the other hand, belief that Jesus is God, part of a Trinity, is a fundamental theological belief, and one that is unique to Christianity. More importantly, as I've said, your personal opinions are not relevant in the face of what reliable sources have to say on the matter. Amd, in fact, that's what the current introduction does; you, on the other hand, are arguing that non-reliable sources sympathetic to the Messianic Jewish movement should be used. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Avi. Your POV does not represent mainline "Messianic" views.

CowboyWisdom 20:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Cowboy, do you have an reliable sources which back up any of your claims? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have already cited David H. Stern who is a reliable source. Dr. Stern's background includes a Master of Divinity degree from Fuller Theological Seminary, graduate work at the University of Judaism, and a Ph.D. in economics from Princeton University. He taught the first course in 'Judaism and Christianity' at Fuller Theological Seminary and at UCLA he was a professor.

As quoted from his CJB introduction: "The New Testament Is a Jewish Book. However the time came for the restoring the Jewishness of the New Testament. For the New Testament is in fact a Jewish book --by Jews, mostly about Jews, and for Jews as well as Gentiles."

Here are several links to materials...

See article article #20 by Dr. Ruth Fleischer entitled 'Messianic Jewish Identity' in this PDF: IAMCS Spirit of Messiah magazine.

This archive provides many Messianic answers: Jewish Voice archives.

Over the years that I've studied Messianic Judaism. It will take time to search out the various articles (from various Messianic ministries) that I've read.

I am simply a reporter, reporting what mainline Messianic Judaism has said about itself. The main body of the Messianic Judaism article should not be written from a 'secondhand' outside perspective.

CowboyWisdom 00:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Avi. Your POV does not represent mainline "Messianic" views.

CowboyWisdom 20:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Cowboy, it does not have to. The article is not supposed to represent mainstream Messianic views, that is also POV. The fact of the matter is, that by the definition of Christ, meaning the anointed one, which is Biblical Hebrew is Moshiach (משיח) or Messiah, ipso facto means that one who believes that Jesus of Nazareth was the anointed messiah, believes that he is the Christos or Christ. Now, as I reiterate, Messianism is a return to original pre-Pauline, Judeao-Christianity, but to say that Jesus of Nazareth was the messiah and not christ is sophistry; the words are translations of each other! Quote from Wiki article Christ:

Christ is the English representation of the Greek word Χριστός (Christos). The Christian religion takes its name from Christ, as a title given to Jesus of Nazareth, always capitalized as a singularly descriptive title meaning literally The Anointed One. The word Χριστός has been used since pre-Christian times to translate the Hebrew word מָשִׁיחַ (Mašíaḥ). In English translations of the New Testament, the Greek Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (Iēsous Christos), and related phrases, are almost invariably translated Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus…

Quote from Wiki article Messiah (emphasis added is my own):

In Judaism, the Messiah (מָשִׁיחַ Standard Hebrew Mašíaḥ, Tiberian Hebrew Māšîªḥ, Aramaic משיחא) initially meant any person who was anointed by a prophet of God. In English today, it is used in two major contexts: the anticipated saviour of the Jews, and one who is anticipated as, regarded as, or professes to be a saviour or liberator. Jews, however, do not generally use the word "saviour" in reference to the messiah, primarily because of the Christian connotation of the word "saviour." In the first century, Jews interpreted the prophecies of the Tanakh to refer more specifically to someone appointed by God to lead the Jewish people in the face of their tribulations with the Romans. Christians believe that these prophecies actually referred to a spiritual savior, and consider Jesus to be that messiah. The word Christ (Greek Χριστός, Christos, "the anointed one") is a literal translation of "mashiach" used in the Greek Septuagint version of the Bible, and derived from the Greek verb χριω "rub, anoint with scented unguents or oil, as was done after bathing", "anoint in token of consecration" (Liddell & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon).

Quote forom Wiki article Jesus:

Jesus (8-2 BC/BCE — 29-36 AD/CE),[1] also known as Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity. In this context, he is known as Jesus Christ, where Christ is a Greek title meaning "Anointed One" which corresponds to the Hebrew term "Messiah".

It is painfully clear that believing Jesus is the Messiah is a form of Christianity; and that has been the norm for the past 2000 or so years. Again, I agree that Messiansim can resemble Judaism in that it is Christianity before Paul made such sweeping changes and created extreme diffrences between Christianity and Judaism. But to say that Messiansins is a form of Judaism goes against millenia of tradition on both' the Christian and Jewish sides, as well as the simple definitions and tenents of BOTH faiths and BOTH faiths’ texts. -- Avi 00:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. You want an article that leaves Messianic Judaism out of the picture!

Perhaps in like manner, the article on Judaism should primarily be written from Christian, or Messianic point of view. Do you see the point?

The simplicity of the matter is that Messianic Jews primarily use the Hebrew terms Yeshua and Messiah. The Article is about Messianic Judaism, is it not? What is a reader to learn if it is presented in "Christianeze" (or even Judaisms POV). The commonly used presentation by Messianic Jews is to use the name Yeshua followed by (Jesus) or (Hebrew name for Jesus).

Another useful article is: See: May\June 2006, Page 13, Article: Hebrew Christian or Messianic jew? -- CowboyWisdom 20:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Cowboy, the issue is what is "Messianic Judaism"? Judaism (at least the Judaism that has been in existence since the time of Jesus of Nazareth, however he is referred to by various peoples) believes that it is a form of Christianity—Judeo-Christianity. Messianic practicioners themselves believe it is a form of Judaism; albeit with Jesus of Nazareth acting as the Messiah, or Christ. Both POV's must be represented to fulfill WP:NPOV. However, which is the most accurate portrayal? I tend to believe that the Messianic perception is a self-contradiction. How can you believe that Jesus of Nazareth, Yeshua, Yosi min HaGalil, Yeshu Hanotzri, Iesus Christos, or whatever title/nomenclature is applied to the historical figure was the Messiah/Moshiach/Christos/Anointed one/etc. and still maintain that it is non-"Christ"ian? I am sure that Messianic philosophers have explanations, and as such, their representation is required in the article; and I will defend that against anyone who chooses to revert it. However, the start of the article as it stands is the most accurate, NPOV, description I can think of "Messianic Judaism refers to a group of loosely related religious movements which combine Christian theology with Jewish religious practice." There is no more central tenent to Christian theology than Jesus of Nazareth's being the anointed Messiah, and the practice of Pesach, Succos, Shavuos, etc. is part and parcel of Jewish religious practice. What are you disagreeing with? -- Avi 20:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

PS. Please read the following for reasons why Judaism fundementally does not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. Why don't Jews believe in Jesus. -- Avi 20:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Avi, the fact that Christianity, holds a particular view of Jesus. Does not mean that anyone who has that view of Jesus is a Christian, or has Christian theology. There is no more central tenant to Islamic theology than Monotheism. Does that mean that Judaism is a combination of rabbinic traditions and Islamic theology? Obviously not. It is equally obvious that while Christianity shares some some theological perpectives with messianic judaism, it does not give Christianity exclusive ownership of those perspectives, nor does it identify the adherents of those perspectives with Christianity. Of the Messianic Jews, that I have met, most would be as offended to be called Christians, as the Satmar Hassidim I know would be to be called Chabadnicks. How does representing the beliefs and identity of any group, as something the group represented would be offended at, in anyway conform to to Wikipedia Policy? Lorem 08:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that when I go to the Christianity article and the Judaism article, and the Islam article, their articles are in favor of them? I even went to the Satanism article, the Buddhism and the Hinduism articles – and their articles are in favor of them? Is an article about us, about Messianic Jews, NOT supposed to be in favor of us and our religion? No, not fair at all. Which is precisely why I keep calling for those of you who are Jewish and are on your anti-missionary crusade to not write the article. I understand the issues of NPOV. I do not have the time to address them (work and home obligations take up most of my time) but I know that there has been substantial research on Messianic Judaism that could make an MJ feel proud about a page for us on wikipedia. FYI – whether pre or post Paul, anyone reading the New Testament that does not see its “jewishness” is not relying on PaRDeS way of understanding the Scriptures or are denying what they see. The New Testament does NOT go against the laws of Kashrut. The New Testament does NOT preach AGAINST the feasts or the Sabbath. The New Testament says that ANYONE who takes away from the Law is “in trouble”, more or less. Proper study of the New Testament reveals its “jewishness”. Also, Christ, in any respect, is a Greek term. Not a Messianic term. So if Mashiach is Christ in Greek is a non issue, because most of us don’t acknowledge the word. That and the fact that the name Jesus, when truly researched, turns out to mean nothing, keeps us from being Christian, in my opinion. Back to the point, tho – if we are not to be represented in the way that the other religious sites are represented, then perhaps wikipedia doesn’t need to have a Messianic Judaism page at all. Rivka 22:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rivka, there clearly appears to be an anti-missionary Counter-Missionary attempt to hijack this Messianic Jewish topic!

CowboyWisdom 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It would list in at least one place: Category:Religious faiths, traditions, and movements. [1]

A Category:Messianic Community could list associations such as the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations (UMJC), Messianic Israel Alliance, and Messianic Jewish Alliance of America. Messianic Jewish or Messianic Judaism topics and the Category:Messianic Jews can go into it.

The reason why I propose this is that some groups appear not to particularly refer themselves to being "Messianic Jewish" or use the word Messianic Judaism. There are Messianic groups known as Nazarene Yisraelites, Nazarene Judaism, and Messianic Israel. One website even states (as quoted): ""Messianic Israel Alliance" was chosen to be more inclusive to non-Jews than a Messianic Jewish title."

I find the term 'Messianic community' used occasionally on Messianic web sites. The Complete Jewish Bible, by David H. Stern uses the words 'Messianic community' in place 'church'.

Further thought would even consider a category that both Messianic and Christianity could funnel down to such as Category:Body of Messiah.

CowboyWisdom 21:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• "Messianic Judaism" itself could be a category used to develop and clarify the entirety of articles that it encompasses. inigmatus 05:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I support the propsal to make Messianic Judaism a Category tree, as it is a not a single entity with a unified voice, but a common identifier of multiple groups, that vary in practice and perspective. It is apparent the only unifying factors are: a) a belief that person they refer to as Yeshua is the messiah; and b) a self identification as being culturally and religiously Jewish. Beyond those points, there is very little that can be applied to the whole of "Messianic Judaism". Lorem 08:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• I, too, support the tree idea. Even within my MJAA congregation, there are congregants who have come out of the Orthodox, Reformed, and Conservative sects of Judaism (both Sephardic and Ashkenazic); congregants who came to us out of Catholic, SDA, CRC, RCA, Methodist, COGIC, and Pentecostal (AG) backgrounds. We have Jewish, Caucasian, African-American, Hispanic, and Asian ethnicities represented in our Body. With that diverse a mix, we don't even have consensus on every doctrine in a standard 120 congregant MJAA Body. Many of the less universally-held doctrines should be relegated to their own entries branching off the main one, doctrines such as Semitic primacy of the B'rit Chadashah (NT), for example. Just a few thoughts from the MJAA camp.  :-) Brachot l'cha (blessings to you) - SHLAMA 09:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• 2006-06-13 Messianic Judaism—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.8.41.193 ( talk • contribs) 19:48, June 12, 2006 (UTC)

(Reads the MC Case for MJs and only half way understands what the MC is and cannot currently receive any more information on it mentally, because she's working too hard to really concentrate on it...) Yeeeahh! Rivka 15:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Cowboy, I am somewhat shocked at the statement “along with User:Avraham appear to be willfully intimidating other editors on the Talk:Messianic Judaism….” I respectfully request you read everything I posted on the above page, and point out where I engaged in "intimidation" tacticts. I have tried to be civil and polite at all times, and let my opinions, analogies, and proofs speak for themselves. If you could find such statements, I will be the first to apologize, as it was never my intent to engage in argumentum ad hominem or browbeating; rather, intellectual discourse. I thought that we were succsesful in that regard. Please realize that if it is the preponderance of evidence that is intimidating, that should say something in and of itself. If, however, you cannot point to any such statements that are intimidating, both on your talk page or on Talk:Messianic Judaism, the honorable thing for you to do would be to a) remove my name from this request, and b) apologize for the false accusation. Thank you. -- Avi 15:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Cowboy, you did not properly submit the mediation request; you neither posted it to the cabal site nor properly filled out the forms. If you wish to make use Wikipeia's mediation methods, it behooves you to both understand them (cabal vs. committee) and use them properly. I will try and finish it for you. -- Avi 15:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, Cowboy, please follow the above link and see if I copy/pasted your request properly. I made no changes to your verbage, other than to post your requests in the proper sections. As the person who meant to submit this request, you may wish to fill out some of the answers which I could not answer for you. Also, I still am surprised at your accusation of intimidation on my part, and expect either verification or retraction in the name of fairness. Thank you. -- Avi 15:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Who did permanent deletes from even the history of this talk page to cover the tracks of PinchasC?

Yeshua said, "Father, forgive them, for they don't know what they are doing."... (Luk 23:34 HNV)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.242.12 ( talk • contribs) 11:20, June 14, 2006

I don't know about you, but I have been checking this page dozens of times daily for the past week or so, and nowhere did I see signes of tampering. Your accusation seems to be both unfounded and severe. Actually, I am not sure what you suggested is even possible. -- Avi 17:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Gee, now User:PinchasC only has a personal user page dated 23:10, 14 June 2006. There is no history available yet I saw this persons page before 14 June 2006!

It is my concern that User:PinchasC and User:Avraham (avi)are the same person. Note that both --PinchasC and -- Avi use a "--" before their name in various posts.

Think of it, a person with two user names can reinforce their personal POV as two voices.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.158.154.116 ( talk • contribs) 14:16, June 16, 2006 (UTC)

Any admin can see that we are not, I presume. Further, presusals of our contributions and edit histories should make it painfully obvious that we have different circles. Lastly, the fact that we argued way back when when PinchasC still used the name Eliezer is just the icing on the cake. Now, pray tell, please let us know who YOU are. As they say Kol HaPosel, B'Mumo Posel or "Methinks the IP doth protest too much. You owe us both an apology, by the way. -- Avi 19:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, to me, this just proves that the above person is trying to engage in personal attacks and, of course, does not wish to log in. You may wish to look at this, whomever you are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PinchasC/archive3#Minyan -- Avi 19:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletions were made to delete evidence related to the Cabal case. Administrators do have access to a tool designed to delete all accounts of vandelism from the logs that includes the history. It appears that such a tool was used for 'personal use'.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.158.157.36 ( talk • contribs) 08:40, June 17, 2006 (UTC)

One user ( User:Avraham ) referred themselves in the first paragraph as quote: "I am an unabashed deletionist." but then removed the comment from their personal page 14:37, 13 June 2006. Is there a connection with what the above discussion describes and this persons self proclamation as a "deletionist"?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.8.40.86 ( talk • contribs) 11:00, June 17, 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you look at what deletionism is, my anonymous friend, and also at the edit summary of that change. argumentum ad hominem neither bolsters your case nor diminishes my arguments. I am somewhat saddened that you feel that you need to hide behind the cloak of anonymity, and are unwilling to discuss the merits of this issue on its face, but feel forced to resort to trying to cast aspersions on the editors involved. I sincerely hope that you become more confident in yourself, and are willing to discuss and debate in the open, one day. -- Avi 06:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Although, it seems that you forgot to log in when putting 'y' by your name, Cowboy. I believe you still owe me either an explanation or an apology for your statements on the Mediation Cabal request; which is compounded by your borderline personal attacks on this page. Civility and above-boardness are necessities for functioning in a complex society such as Wikipedia, you know. -- Avi 06:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm the mediator from the medcab who agreed to take the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-13 Messianic Judaism. Before we begin I'd like to establish whether people want to mediate this issue. Its a little vague to me reading the case file whether there was agreement to mediate or not. OK in terms of bias there is a lot to object to on both sides (so hopefully you all see this as balancing out, if not now is the time to object!). I'm a jewish atheist. I am very familiar with christian doctrine and teachings, and generally handle religion cases for mediation cabal. I know the history of the messianic movement from the 1880s forward. So first off if you want to be in the mediation please put a "yes" by your name, if not a "no". If I you want to add yourself please do. If you would like mediation but don't want me as mediator please indicate "reject" next to your name. jbolden1517 ^Talk 02:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Avraham ( talk · contribs) - depends; if we agree to use inigmatus's version, I see no further need for mediation, if not, then I would agree.
• PinchasC ( talk · contribs) - no
• CowboyWisdom ( talk · contribs) y—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.8.40.190 ( talk • contribs) 11:34, June 17, 2006 (UTC)
• Jayjg ( talk · contribs)
• RivkaRebecca ( talk · contribs) - yes
• Inigmatus ( talk · contribs) - yes
• lorem ( talk · contribs) - Yes I support a mediation into the practices of administrators and editors with regards to the right application of wikipedia policy, and the abuses in the name of wikipedia policy, used to manipulate the content of the article. I would need to know more about your own credentials and bias to support your role as mediator regarding the specific content.

PichasC's comment

As I posted on the mediation page, I am not interested in this mediation as there is nothing to mediate since all I did was protect the page due to an edit war that was taking place between multiple users. Protection of a page is not an endorsment of the current page version. Other than the locking of the page I have not been involved in the talk page for a while so I don't know where the intimidation comes in. There is no policy that says that a member of one religion cannot edit or protect the page describing another religion. Furthermore since Mediation does not ban people from article it seems like the user that submitted this is not familiar with the proccess of mediation and is using this as a way to push his agenda. If there is a valid complaint against me feel free to open a new case and we can work it out but with the way it is written now, I am not interested. I would advise that whomever submitted this reread the relevant policy articles. -- PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm here to resolve content issues. If you are uninterested in the subject of the article that's fine. If you are interested then there is an underlying content dispute which it appears that Cowboy wants mediated. Obviously medcab doesn't have authority to address admin abuse so if that's cowboy's claim I'll explain, relevant policy and if he still wants to go ahead where to file and I'm done. Do you object to mediation strictly on the content issue if that is the root issue? jbolden1517 ^Talk 02:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to see the content issue that I am involved with, once this content issue that I am involved in is shown I will be happy to join mediation until then I refuse. -- PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Page Revision Mediation

My involvement in this is to get the article lock removed. I have invested considerable time redesigning the article User:Inigmatus/Messianic Judaism revision to address the various POVs that obviously have valid input in this article. In all sincerety, my goal is featured page status for the whole of pages included within a future "Messianic Judaism" category. For the sake of time, I submit my revision now as a possible draft for replacing the current article. Where it goes from there, is up to the wikiverse. I just think this article could benefit from a complete revamp and redesign, and I offer my work as one possibility. I'll be adding references throughout the week, but before I got too far into it, I figured it would be best to simply have everyone vote on it now before I wasted my time doing so. So, can we get a vote now to start the article completely over with my revision? I intend to move more original article content over to it, but again you see, I want to know if at least it will worth the effort to keep going in this direction. Thoughts? inigmatus 03:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I vote that the lock be removed and Inigmatus' revision set in place... Rivka 13:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I second that motion, I think that inigmatus's version is much fairer and NPOV than any version we have had here. -- Avi 14:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Is User:Inigmatus really a Messianic Jew--as she has personaly stated? Her article still appears to be from Judaism's standpoint and not a NPOV as to include a fair definition of what mainline Messianic Judaism really is.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.7.242.12 ( talk • contribs) 11:07, June 14, 2006 (UTC)

First, I'm a guy, and second, my congregation can be found by visiting www.graftedin.com. I have been a part of Messianic leaning, Assembly of God, Charismatic leaning, Law free, and now Torah observant congregations for over 12 years. In an effort to keep NPOV, the goal is to not make it apparent what I believe when I write an article. If I have succeeded in doing so, as you seem to have verified for me, then I have succeeded. I wish to confirm the motion to unlock the original article, and publish my revision as the new article. If you would like to explain to me what is "mainstream Messianic Judaism" please feel free to input your facts in the appropriate sections. For now, I think there are Jews that would also object that I'm too NPOV in favor of Messianic Judaism. Kaplah! (thats Klingon for success) inigmatus 16:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I should also like to ask, what is not true about the definition for Messianic believer? In my revision I write: "In Messianic Judaism, a Messianic believer is usually a self-appointed term, and almost always describes someone who has accepted the essential salvific doctrines of Christianity, but also adopts in part or in full a Jewish expression of that faith." If that isn't a definition for mainstream Messianic Judaism, then I don't know what is. Any other Messianics concurr with me on this? inigmatus 16:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I see nothing wrong with the article; it focuses on everyone *I* know, lol, that calls themselves Messianic Believers. That goes for personal life and internet life as well. What I found to be shocking was that I was in the minority for the more orthodox sect of Messianic Believers, lol. *shrugs* thought everyone was similar to me.

In any respect, Inigmatus' revision is better written than the original and is more NPOV than the current versions of this article and I commend him for his efforts. The article makes me feel as if I'm "learning" about myself, and that's what I like. Again I ask that the protection be lifted from the article...sorry; this is Rivka from another computer. 209.136.211.32 17:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

While I support the intention of the revision by ignatamus. I cannot support the revision in its current state as it contain a great deal of error, is mostly relevent only regarding the most americanized and assimilated segments in the messianic community, and does not reflect the more orthodox, torah knowlegnable segments, nor the messianic communities in Israel. I would be willing to make some furthrur revisions, However as a non mesianic Jew, i have limited access to the reliable sources that I have heard referenced with over the years, but I will try to find what I can. I have tried to encourage recoignized authorities within the messianic jewish community to take an active role, but as of yet, they have all replied that they are too busy to put time into this effort. Lorem 21:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. As an orthodox, Torah knowledgeable, Messianic, I'd sure love to know what part of the article is in error in its representation, especially since you are not one. Last I checked, there is no distinction between "americanized MJs" and Israeli MJs (except maybe Hebrew is spoken more in Israeli congregations - but this is not the case since they receive so many english speaking visitors - even the congregation in Jerusalem uses english). Now, if you are referring to the issue over the deity of the Messiah, then I think that is the only other segment of those who call themselves Messianic Jews that would probably object to my revision. Of course, their view isn't the mainstream definition for MJs, and as such if need be, I don't see why one couldn't put a new section in the Identity section called "Messianic Jewish Objections to Messianic Judaism" to address that. In short, I'm just saying I haven't a clue what you are referring to when you say the article is in error. Perhaps you can clarify? inigmatus 22:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Are the editors to this article ready for the page to be unprotected? Have the issues that caused the edit wars before it was protected worked out? -- PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how; the editors in question still don't seem to value Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. They want to create an article which expresses the Messianic Jewish POV, and they don't seem interested in citing anything they say. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg when those policies are applied strictly, you object and call the removal of information vandalism, when they are applied loosely you call additions, unsourced POV or OR.

When they are applied stricly to remove pro messianic informations and ignored to include anti-messianic information you defend the edits and revert any attempt change them. I would have no problem your edits if you applied the SAME STANDARDS universally. If you (and your cohorts) will agree that no unsorted anti-messianic statement, be allowed, I will agree that no unsourced pro-messianic statement be allowed. If you NOT remove sourced information you object to without a consensus, I will agree to not remove sourced information that I object to without consensus. Whatever standard you set is the standard you set by your edits for how strict the policies should be applied is the standard I will use in my edits. But I will not sit back and watch you and your cohorts selectivly apply wikipedia policy to manipulate this article. I would very much like to have a coopererative rather than competive rellationship with you as far as wikipedia is concerned, and I find that at times you contribute in a valuable way. are you willing to work together in good faith? Nistar

• With my new version, I think it will be very hard to see the frequency in edit wars as before, now that new sections are available for people on all sides of this article's NPOV to input their POV from a 3rd person perspective. I think there is a consensus to switch the article to my version here: User:Inigmatus/Messianic Judaism revision. Please vote yes below.

• Yes It is the best design for the page. inigmatus 22:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It still needs to be sourced; almost none of it currently is. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I was going to work on sourcing, moving old article information over, and adding more material, only if my article would be accepted. I dont want to work on it any more than I already have since I don't know if it will be accepted or not. I would think it would be far easier for me to work on citing sources if it were already the main article, and we can finally get some work done on Messianic Judaism. Please vote to at least use my revision as a new basis. You can slap an POV tag on it if you wish until the cites are completed. inigmatus 22:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I am working on sourcing it on your user page, inigmatus. -- Avi 16:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I will be too. :) I haven't done much since yesterday as I wiped out my primary Master Boot Record while doing a Linux install. Never hit "delete" if you dont know exactly what it will do. *grin* It'll take me a day or so to get back up and running from home. I'm just glad I was smart enough to do a backup. inigmatus 16:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• NO, I do not see any advantage to the revision to the current version. Jon513 11:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't see ANY advantage? Not even a single one? Not even the new categories, or the new introduction, or the lengthy definition for Messianic believer, or the new information on Messianic Jew, Messianic Gentile,etc, or any of the new material? Just tell me now, what would have to change in the revision to be ANY advantage over the original article? inigmatus 14:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That is correct, I see no advantage over the current one. The sections on "Messianic Jew, Messianic Gentile,etc" are a sentence or two and can never be expanded to anything greater. The current introduction is clearer and more to the point of what Messianic Judaism is "Messianic Judaism refers to a group of loosely related religious movements which combine Christian theology with Jewish religious practice" as opposed to "Messianic Judaism is a relatively recent restoration branch of Christianity that claims at least 50,000 to 100,000 followers and 300 to 500 congregations worldwide as of 2006" - which may be an important fact but it is not the best description. I have not seen any notable new material, but if there is it can be appended to the current revision. Jon513 15:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yes I feel it should be used. I also feel that those of you who do not want it to be used have their own agenda. Inigmatus' article is NPOV and, if he provides sources, is more neutral than the current version. Rivka 13:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

OK I think I see the issue here. From what I can see the MJ group wants an article that uses their language more like Inigmatus's. On the other hand the other group wants an article that is more factual. There is no theoretical contradiction between those desires. Rather than mediate between two sides for now I'd be willing to critique the new version so that the MJ side gets more of a detailed feel for the objections. Would that be helpful? jbolden1517 ^Talk 00:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me, Jbolden. As for me, when I have time, I am concentrating on following the links that I can, verifying that they are accurately portrayals, and then adding/updating them in the article. -- Avi 00:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Jbolden I don't think that's an accurate assessment of the situation. the Messianic Jews want the article to be factual, and believe that the facts can only be adaquatly portrayed in terminology that is consistent with messianic usage. Among them are those who perceive Messianic Judaism and Christianity to be entirely incompatible, and consider the use of Christian terminology offensive and misrepresentative. The others are either those who Perceive Messianic Judaism as being Christianity, and believe a Christian presentation would be more factual; or those opposed to messianic Judaism who are more concerned with distancing it from judaism, than in objectively presenting it from a NPOV. If your desire in doing a Critique is only to get the Messianic Jews to accept the objections of the anti-Messianic Jews, then you are not doing a service to this article. However, if your critique is to show all the biases and factual errors in the article, then it may serve to aid in developing an article that is factual and objective. in order to do that you would need to both have an extensive understanding of the beliefs, practices, culture and perceptions of the various subgroups within Messianic Judaism, as well as an extensive understandign of the ideological, and emotional framework of the objections of the opposition. Nistar 08:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

First off I reject your characterization of messianic belief, "Messianic Judaism and Christianity to be entirely incompatible". I see no evidence of any statement that strong, any practices consistent with that, organization practices consistent with that, etc... For a counter example consider what the MJ attitude would be towards Vishnu worship. If a member of an MJ congregation asserted they believed in "Jesus" that would not be considered false it would be considered an error in their use of terminology, if they asserted they believed in Krishna it would be considered simply a false belief and the correction would not be at the terminology level (i.e. someone would not say "we call Krishna, Yeshua here...".)

So given that rejection I'll take your example of terms. Wikipedia position on questions of terminology, is that they must be used in a way consistent with common usage. So if the sentence is phrased in terms of explanation (i.e. in wikipedia's voice) then by in large things are going to end up being described in language which sound Christian. If on the other hand if everything is taught in terms of what MJ's believe then the terminology can be in their own voice (though the explanation most likely will still contain sentences like "this is analogous to the Christian belief in XYZ".

And I do not have an extensive understand of the various subgroups of messianic Judaism or even one of them. You all asked for help from Medcab because you were unhappy with they way the argument was going. I'm not here to join in the argument but rather help it to refocus. If you do not want to refocus then there is really nothing for Medcab to do. jbolden1517 ^Talk 11:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It really depends on what you mean by "Christian" whether or not they are compatible with Messianic Believers. Some denominations are hostile toward us (those who espouse anti-Semitic replacement theology in particular), and some are our brothers and sister in the Body of Messiah. The issue isn't so much presenting only a philo-Semitic POV, it is keeping the philo-Semitic presentation in its proper place and the anti-Semitic presentation in a different place - under a rebuttal heading possibly? - SHLAMA 10:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[outdenting]

Listen, I'd just be happy having my new version replace the current article from which we can all work from. The idea was to present sections in such a way that all sides of the issues regarding them can be presented, instead of the hodgpodge we currently have in the old article. It was not my intention to literally have my article set the grammatical tone. Let's vote to start over with my article, and may it be mercilessly edited in keeping with the spirit of wiki. Hopefully I will have set a good foundation to help resolve some of these disputes over exclusive information, and I like the idea that all sides should have a verifiable say in the article. inigmatus 14:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Inigmatus Jayjg has killed the idea of starting with your article as is. I may be able to get it to the point he would be willing to work with it. I'm looking for opening here to pull the sides closer. jbolden1517 ^Talk 17:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Jbolden, do whatever it is you feel would be needed for us to come to some sort of resolution. What must be understood, though, is that both sides of this argument have their personal crusades tied up in it. Nistar’s assessment of the situation is accurate and I’m personally sorry if you took offense to what he/she said.

I didn't take offense. Trust me both sides are a long way away from my personal opinion on the issue :-) jbolden1517 ^Talk 17:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If Wikipedia’s position on terminology is that it “must be used in a way consistent with common usage”, are you saying, then, that the page should NOT refer to the Messiah as Yeshua?

Wikipedia does not have a postion that there is a messiah and moreover if there is one if he/she is Jesus, Yeshua, Krishna or Tammuz. Thats why the issue of voice is important. Having wikipedia assert X is going to require a very high standard, having wikipedia assert that Y believes X is going to require a much lower standard. jbolden1517 ^Talk 17:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia does not have a position on the Messiah; that was not my point. Rivka 13:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This is confusing to me; throughout the MJ community the Messiah is referred to as Yeshua, so it would be common to us. Is the article then, needing to be made common to the majority of English speakers, which are mostly Christians, or does the article need to show the so-called ins and outs of the Messianic society?

It should summarize the ins and outs for a the majority English audience. jbolden1517 ^Talk 17:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If the "majority English" audience needs an answer to the question of who Yeshua is, they can got to Wikipedia's Yeshua page. The article should not be denounced because of term usage; all terms can be looked up, if needed. Rivka 13:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with us having a Messianic page that refers to the Messiah as Jesus and not Yeshua, is because there are some factions of the Messianic community that consider Jesus to be a “false” Messiah, and that Jesus and Yeshua are two different people. It may come as a shock to those who are not Messianic, being that it is not said outside of MJ circles, really. But there are a few who believe that.

Can you provide a citation for the above? jbolden1517 ^Talk 17:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

jbolden none that wikipedia would deem worthy, I'm afraid. A few websites by a few congregational leaders is not worthy; don't citations and sources and what not need to have some merit, rather than be people who have studied on their own? I was of the mind that this is how it went. Rivka 13:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So, to call Yeshua “Jesus”, can be, for some, seen as your example of Krishna vs. Yeshua. Since you are simply the moderator I don’t feel that you need to have an extensive understanding of Messianic Judaism; it is good, however, to understand both sides of the argument and try to bring us to some level ground.

(I was writing this at the same time Inigmatus was posting his reply so this has nothing to do with Inigmatus’ reply). Rivka 14:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I started doing the work at User talk:Inigmatus/Messianic Judaism revision. jbolden1517 ^Talk 05:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe this page -- with all its controversies -- deserves a category. I propose Category:Messianic Judaism, which, in turn, belongs under Category:Abrahamic religions. Agreed? -- The Editrix 22:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The category of Messianic Judaism can go beneath Category:Christianity. -- PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If it goes under Christianity, then the category of Messianic Judaism should also go under Judaism. I I concurr with Editrix that it instead should start under Abrahamic religions and go from there until its status is accepted by both Category Christian and Category Judaism together. inigmatus 02:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Messianic Judiasm is, in fact, a new religious movement. It is no more a subcategory of Judaism or Christianity than Bahá'í is a subcategory of Islam, Islam is a subcategory of Christianity, or Christianity is a sub-category of Judaism. They share roots, but have entirely different faith systems. Shucky darn. I've just entered an edit war! -- The Editrix 07:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC), backing away now. Slowwwllly. Don't shoot an unarmed editor!

Agreed. Messianic judaism, has severed all ties with Christian identity. so it is not a subset of Chritianity. WHether they are a subset of Judaism is a matter of greater contoversy, they self identify as Judaism, as does rescuntructionist judaism reform Judaism anfd conservative Judaism. But like those movements they have rejected the authority of the Inbroken rabinic tradition. My personal opinion is that NONE of them is a subset of Judaism, and that ONLY Orthodox sects (such as the Haredi, the Hasidim etc),. qulify as Judaism Lorem 03:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Editrix is right, lol. But since it has an Abrahamic basis I agree that it should fall in that category. Rivka 18:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg took the time to start making edits to Inigmatus's version. I made some comments. User talk:Inigmatus/Messianic Judaism revision. Everyone on the MJ indicated an interest in mediation. That means you actually have to try and create something along with Jayjg and PinchasC... How does starting new categories get you any closer to stopping the edit wars on the article page? jbolden1517 ^Talk 02:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm genuinely uninterested in the edit war y'all have gotten yourselves into. My interest is strictly in rounding out the Abrahamic Religions category. I've got no dog in this fight, so won't be getting involved. The Editrix 07:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes because after all there was no way that considering messianic judaism as a separate religion at the category level could at all be connected to the "edit war" they are having. I'm sure the people objecting in article space to this idea aren't going to have any problem with it in becoming a permanent part of template space. jbolden1517 ^Talk 07:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I give up. I'm closing the mediation case. When you all actually want to get an article you like that won't get blocked let me know. jbolden1517 ^Talk 07:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There have been various Messianic Jewish movements over history centered on various claimed Messiahs including Shabbatai Tzvi, Jacob Frank, and most recently Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Why all the focus on what (from a Jewish point of view) is only one of the various messianic Jewish movements? -- Shirahadasha 05:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

From an anthropological & etymological point of view, the answer to your question is simple: No other movement has laid claim to the title "Messianic Judaism." If they wish to self-define as Messianic Jews, they're in the game. If not, the question is moot. -- The Editrix 07:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

For as long as the artice is lock in it's present for It needs to have the totally disputed tage, there is no question that , in its current form, it is totally disputed Lorem 03:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Then use the {{ editprotected}} template. However, before the {{ totallydisputed}} is added to the page, it may be prudent to show a consensus, since edits to locked pages are supposed to be uncommon. -- Avi 04:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If you all want to put said tag on this article, I'm for it. Rivka 21:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wrong_version -- PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we please remove the article lock? I think it's abuse to keep it locked simply because people disagree. As far as I can tell, this article will always be a hot topic that need cool heads and constant monitoring, but to freeze article development altogether because there are differences, I think, is to employ a stealth form of censorship. I don't think a "temporary lock" was ever meant to last a whole month. inigmatus 14:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)