Talk:Messianic Judaism

Jewish rejection of Jesus

The Aish site listed on the last bullet point supports the entire text. See Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 18#Footnote placement. -- Avi (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

HCAA?

The text refers to "HCAA" but doesn't say what this is or what the abbreviation stands for! --rossb (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"Defining distinction" sentence

I have marked this sentence as unclear:

Messianic Judaism's belief in the role and divinity of Jesus is seen by Christian denominations and Jewish religious movements as being the defining distinction between Christianity and Judaism.

Can someone help me understand exactly what this sentence intends to convey? As written it is not clear. Zad68 (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems clear to me; belief in the divinity of Jesus makes one a Christian and not a Jew. -- Avi (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I also don't understand what's unclear about it. It says that both Jews and Christians see belief in JC as being the essential dividing line between Judaism and Christianity. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, so if I am getting this right, the intent is to focus on 1) the theological idea that Messianic Judaism and Christianity (as a whole) share, and 2) how Judaism views this idea as placing MJ outside of Judaism, and into Christianity. The trouble with the sentence is that it makes it sound like it is specifically MJ's beliefs that Christianity and Judaism refer to for determining whether a religion is Christianity or Judaism. This is backwards. Christianity and Judaism both have the same basic theological ideas in mind that are the defining differences between the two religions, and these ideas long pre-dated MJism. So the mention of "Messianic Judaism's belief" muddies the sentence. Also, the Christian view of Jesus is the defining distinction between Christianity and all other religions--not just Judaism. And why can't the sentence say "Judaism" instead of "Jewish religious movements"? Can the sentence be rewritten:

The Christian view of Jesus as Messiah and divine--a view taken by Messianic Judaism--is seen by Christian denominations as being the defining distinction of a Christian religious movement. Also because of this view, Judaism categorizes Messianic Judaism as a form of Christianity, and not a form of Judaism.

I think this would be more clear, and deliver the meaning intended. Zad68 (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that would be clear at all. Or accurate. The sentence as it stands communicates the following concepts:

1. MJs believe JC is divine.
2. Christian denominations see this belief as a defining distinction between Christianity and Judaism.
3. Jewish religious movements see this belief as a defining distinction between Christianity and Judaism.

There is no sense whatsoever that suggests that point #3 derives from point #2, which is implied strongly by your suggested text. More to the point, you have yet to point to any reason why the current version should be changed. You have said that you found it unclear, but you've given no reasons for that. What do you see as being "unclear"? Perhaps if you were to explain that, it might be possible for others to address your concerns. But proposing a completely different text that obfuscates, rather than clarifies, doesn't strike me as particularly helpful. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd also appreciate it if you would indent properly when you comment. If you don't mind. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This might be more clear: The role of Jesus in Messianic Judaism (Savior, Messiah, Son of God etc.) is seen as the defining distinction between Christianity and Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm still lost about where the current text isn't clear. Until we know why he thinks it's unclear, there's no way to know if a change will make it more clear or less clear. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I thought I described what was unclear or inaccurate in my original note. There are three problems:

1. The current sentence says that Christianity and Judaism look to MJism's views about Jesus to determine what the defining difference between Christianity and Judaism is. The problem with this is that an unknowledgeable reader--our target audience--could read this and think that if MJism's stance on Jesus were to change, then so the defining difference between Christianity and Judaism would change. It reads as if MJism's beliefs DEFINE what the difference between Christianity and Judaism is.
2. The current sentence says that the view of Jesus in general is the defining difference between Christianity and Judaism. That's not true. A religious group's view of Jesus is the defining difference between whether or not the group is Christian or not Christian--not whether the group is Christian or Jewish. For example. Muslims don't have the same view of Jesus as MJs, but that does not make them Jewish.
3. The current sentence for some reason says "is seen by Christian denominations and Jewish religious movements", which seems like an unnecessary mouthful. Why can't it say "is seen by Christianity and Judaism"?

Hope that makes my concerns clearer, and we can have a productive discussion. Zad68 (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Your point #1 is valid, and I've modified the sentence to avoid that implication. Your point #2, however, is not. To say that X is the defining difference between Y and Z doesn't preclude X from also being the defining difference between A and Z. It doesn't say that it's the defining difference only between Judaism and Christianity. Point #3... you have a point, but that mouthful is the result of many compromises over a long time. To change it would result in edit warring. I think we should probably leave it alone. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I've changed "the defining difference" to "a defining difference", which I think should help with issue 2, and is more accurate anyway. Belief that Jesus is a messiah and god is an important defining difference between Christianity and Judaism, but it's not the only one. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Zad68, do these changes satisfy your concerns? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Much better. "Distinction" was the word that was needed, good work folks, thanks. Zad68 (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Messianic Conversion

The last line of the section (No non-Messianic Jewish movement views a Messianic conversion as valid) is referenced to a source that says nothing to support the phrase, but rather cites a ruling that has since been overturned. [1] Is there a source to substantiate the claim? --DeknMike (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read the article; you have made the same mistake the Baptist Press did. As the article says (emphasis added is my own): "But, as was explained to The Jerusalem Post by a legal assistant to Myers, this is apparently a misunderstanding of the ruling, which determined that the petitioners were entitled to automatic new immigrant status and citizenship precisely because they were not Jews as defined by the Law of Return, but rather because they were the offspring of Jewish fathers." -- Avi (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Didn't read Baptist Press article you refer to. Did read all of JP report, which says that those MJs that were born Jewish did not have their request for citizenship negated simply by adopting a Messianic perspective.--DeknMike (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If you read the JP article you would see that the ruling is clear that the State of Israel views Messianism as something OTHER than Judaism. Precisely because the Messianics involved are considered not Jewish is the reason they were eligible under the law of return, like any other Christian. For were they to have been considered Jewish, they would have been refused, as the Law of Return does not apply to "…a person who has been a Jew and has voluntarily changed his religion." People who convert from Judaism to Messianism are expressly excluded from the Law of Return, and the ruling discussed in the JP article did not change that. -- Avi (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the title change was that the article talks about MJs who claim a conversion to Judaism. Gentiles can be converted from paganism or regular Christianity to accept MJ doctrine, so "Conversion to MJ" is an ambiguous title, and Messianic Conversion to Judaism is more accurate.--DeknMike (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, exactly the opposite; the section unambiguously discusses people who have converted to Messianic Judaism, nothing more. Please review WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I know what NPOV means. What are you talking about? --DeknMike (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Simply, you are trying to manipulate the heading to create an equivalence between Mesianism and Judaism when everyone but Messianics believe that the movement is Christian. By leaving the heading "Conversion to Messianic Judaism", Messianics can view it as they wish, and the rest of the worl can view it as they wish, and wikipedia has not in and of itself taken a stand on the issue. By saying "Messianic Conversion to Judaism" you have made wikipedia take a stand on the issue, one that is a gross violation of WP:UNDUE, since the preponderance of outside opinion is that MJ is Christianity. We should not write "Messianic Conversion to Christianity" either, as that makes wikipedia take a stand in and of itself, even though that stand is in accord with the vast majority of exogenous opinions. -- Avi (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

As for Messianics own handling of how they deal with ethnic Jews vs. ethnic Gentiles in the same religion, we have the sections under Messianic Judaism#People of God where that is discussed. It is independent of any conversion issues. -- Avi (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If it's true that everyone knows that MJ = Christian, then conversion to MJ would mean conversion to Christianity, and the section would not be needed. As I read the section, it explains how those who have become Messianic have sought to be considered Jewish if not born such. --DeknMike (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Conversion to MJ is conversion to Christianity, because there is no significant difference between MJ and Christianity. The opening sentence of the article should say, "Messianic Judaism is a form of Christianity, and not Judaism." MJs are being thrown a bone here because the article DOESN'T say that. Anyway, your argument is invalid because it commits the logical fallacy of the 'excluded middle.' If it's being conceded that MJ is not exactly Christianity, that doesn't mean it must be Judaism. Zad68 (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Again back to the original question: is there a source for the claim that 'no non-Messianic Jewish movement views a Messianic conversion as valid'? You cite one ruling from Israel, and extrapolate from there. --DeknMike (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)