Talk:Messianic Judaism

I looked at this article nearly 6 months ago and I hardly recognize it. I did not realize this article is deserving of so many words. It has been expanded greatly.

who cares to write so much on messianic judaism?

messianic vs Messianic

I disagree, there are clearly jewish groups from the time of the maccabees down to the destruction of the second temple that believed that their leader was the messiah. Said leader was certainly not Jesus in most cases, but such groups are properly described as a form of messianic judaism.J.F.Quackenbush

You are right. Ignore RK here, who is not qualified to comment on any issue of religion.

Please do not misunderstand I totally agree with you. You are saying that these Jewish groups had messianic beliefs, so you point out that one may describe these groups as "messianic Judaism". Perhaps so, but I was referring to the fact that in common useage the phrase "messianic Judasm" has a specific meaning: It refers to 20th century groups, that's all. RK

This is the reason that I made the distinction between usage towards matters of antiquity and usage in modern English. I agree with you, most people who say "messianic Judaism" nowadays really mean to say "Christianity". This does not, however, alter the fact that the term has a secondary, and possibly older usage that is not sourced in evangelism.J.F.Quackenbush

Furthermore, historians make a clear distinction between the jewish, aramaic speaking "jesus movement" in judaea and the romanized, greek speaking "christian movement" of paul that took hold in Greece, Turkey, and northern Africa. The former is occasionally referred to as messianic judaism.

I was not aware that this was a common useage. RK

I don't know how common it is, but I know I've seen it used in reference to the followers of Simon ben Kosiba at the very least.J.F.Quackenbush

I'm certainly open to a different way of stating that first paragraph, but there should be some mention of this simple fact. Furthermore, I think the article as it now stands is a bit to polemical, but that's just my opinion.

Could be. I just hope that people note the polemics are not about the beliefs of these groups, but rather about truth-in-advertising concerns. (I.E. I am sure that the Christian groups with these concerns are just as Christian as the messianic Jewish groups. They certainly are not arguing against Christianity.) RK

none the less, I'm still not sure it's appropriate in this venue. Then again, I'm new.J.F.Quackenbush

Do they mean Jews for Jesus? messianic vs Messianic Part 2

The article either has NPOV problems or was written by someone who has no understanding of the difference between Jews for Jesus (an evangelical christian organization) and messianics amongst Judaism. It is a well known fact that some prominent Zionists were messianic in their beliefs. Messianic Jews are not organised as the article suggests and are a common phenomenon amongst the Reform Judaic movement. The reform Jewish support for Israel itself is a messianic practice. Messianics usually keep their beliefs to themselves and interact as usual with whatever communities they belong to in the usual ways. Moreover there are many varying degrees of messianic Jew which is totally ignored by the article if Zionists are at the right then the midway messianics regard John & Jesus as reformistic rabbis and consider their words along with the idea that messiah is a spirit within us unlike people at the extreem left end of the scale (although very few other messianics would consider such as still Jewish in anything but perhaps ethnicity) perhaps approaching in belief the extreeme "Jews for Jesus" who accept all the Christian doctrines and cannot really be considered Jewish. And in fact even non Jews can be messianic if they are active workers for mankind's bright future. This article needs a complete overhaul. Preferably by not by a Christian, nor a mainstream Jew, nor a Jew for Jesus but by a Messianic Jew.

"Messianic Judaism" is, in the English language, for better or for worse, in fact, an Evangelical Christian movement. Maybe that isn't the way that it ought to be, in a perfect world (I happen to think it's a good thing), but it is simply so. Run the google test on "Messianic Judaism", and you will see that you are proposing an overhaul not only of this page, but of 99% of the internet. Thank God, there is more to the world than the internet; but, it is a good indication of how mistaken you are, about this terminology. It has been captured by Evangelical Christians, reducing Messianist (non-Christian) Judaism to an appendage. So rein yourself in, before you undertake a "complete overhaul". Mkmcconn 16:38, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Mkmcconn. RK 01:23, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)

Actually, when I first found this page I assumed it would be about messianic Judaism, not about Messianic Judaism. It needs to have the disambiguation more clear. The problem is that I don't know if we have a good article on messianic Judaism to send people to. --Zero 00:44, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Um, what do you mean? I am not familiar with any difference in meaning due only to capitalization. RK 01:23, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)

This article was originally about Christian Jewish groups; that is, groups that practice Christianity, but aspire to preach to Jews and to gain an ethnically Jewish membership. The goal of these groups is to convert Jews to Christianity. Over time, this article has recently come to include messianic quasi-Christian, quasi-Jewish groups that believe that Jesus was the messiah (which puts them outside the bounds of Judaism as it is known today) yet which also deny that Jesus is God or part of the Trinity (which puts them outside the bounds of Christianity.) This expansion of topic seems reasonable, and I just wish to caution that we make clear the distinctions between these groups. However a new person is confused about the terminology, and seems to think that this article should deal with any form of messianism inside Judaism. That would be very misleading. Traditional rabbinic Judaism does have certain beliefs about a person they call "moschiach", usually translated as "messiah"; others within traditional rabbinic Judaism believe in the coming of a future messianic era. These beliefs are not discussed here; they are discussed in the entry on Jewish eschatology and the Jewish Messiah. Traditional rabbinic Judaism is never called "messianic Judaism". That term is used only for the Christian groups, or the quasi-Christian groups. RK 01:23, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)

Ok so what word am I to use to describe the kind of Jew I described above? Messianistic Judaism? Or messianic Judaism (small m as an adjective). Personally today is the first time I have heard Messianist but if that is the word being used to describe us these days then so be it. I have no time to check out all the sites with the term Messianic Judaism (actually I am curious about how you know that 90% of them are evangelical sites). Certainly the ones which get the most hits (i.e. the ones at the top of the lists on google) do seem to be more like Jews for Jesus than anything else. However on the later pages I could find references to Rabbi Joshua as nothing more than a teacher and Jewish reformist. I think I noticed that the major difference seems to be in whether they use the protestant bible as "the inspired word of god" or whether they simply critically analyse any and all relevant early christian writings in order to de-fog the situation. Perhaps Evangelicals are attempting to arrest the term for themselves to give a misconception of the term, but the fact is they are just schizmatic Branches of "Jews for Jesus" and are not really Judaic at all. How can anyone be Judaic if they claim that a human messiah is the creator of the Universe? I think it is only fair to NPOV to have a disambiguation page with Messianic and messianic if necessary and mention messianists if that is the correct term and Jews for Jesus on the page and move all relevant info to the relevant pages. Even just last week I was speaking with some friends about messianic jews like the Zionists and none of us had any inkling about these evangelicals you speak of. Such are Jews for Jesus as far as we knew and now I hear that we have to find a new adjective to describe ourselves. I wonder what Webster's has to say about it. Is anyone guilty of changing the use of language here? I shared Zero's confusion.

I change I made just now is all I think it needs. There is no doubt that the phrase "Messianic Judaism" has come (esp. in the US) to mean the Jesus types. My only concern is that the academic literature is prone to use the phrase "messianic Jew" for any Jew with an especially emphasised messianic outlook. For example the Yemenite Jews pre-1950 are often called "messianic" and the large (large, not tiny as often claimed) group within Chabad that thinks Schneerson is/was the messiah are also called "messianic". By the way, Zestauferov, please sign your comments here so we can keep track of who said what, thanks. --Zero 05:08, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Messianism

Folks, "Messianic Judaism" refers invariably to Christian groups. There may be dozens of other Jewish groups following a different Messiah; but they are not _ever_ called "Messianic Judaism". The religion of the non-Christian groups is called "Judaism", and they are called "messianists", or "followers of ...". There have been dozens of messianist Jewish movements. Where are ANY of them called "Messianic Judaism", other than these modern Christian groups, except (for the moment) on Wikipedia? Certainly, we can mention the other messianic groups; but the normative use of the term is not that generalized reference. It has a more specific reference. Mkmcconn 20:45, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Mkmcconn is obviously correct. Messianic Judaism refers specifically to Christian groups. Lubavitch, or earlier, Sabbateans, are not Messianic Jews, nor are the followers of Bar Kochba 132-135 C.E., Reubeni, Molcho, Luzzatto, or any other historical figure with messianic pretensions. Also, Messianic Judaism is not "within" the Jewish community. It is universally rejected by Jews. Danny 14:42, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Law Suit

"" "Jews for Jesus" filed a suit in a State Supreme Court in Manhattan against a 600-member Council. The Rev. Jack Alford, the executive director of the Council, said the suit "proves the point we were making about their tactics.""

What is that "point"? That Jews don't sue, and Protestants do? This is extremely stupid, and probably doesn't belong here.

Al Mohler

I removed the bit about Al Mohler. As insidious as it may or may not be, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Messianic Jews consider themselves adherents of Judaism, who accept Jesus as the Messiah. Mohler was talking about converting Jews to Christianity, not to Messianic Judaism--a distinction even many Messianic Jews would make. Put it in an article about Missionary efforts to the Jews, if you want (personally, I don't think it makes the cut), but this isn't the place for it. Danny 14:14, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Not Judaism but Jews Nonetheless

"most Jews regard them as Christians who have merely adopted the outward and cultural trappings of Judaism". Almost certainly not the case. Almost all Messianic Jews were Jews before they were Messianic, (there being no incentive for a Christian who is not ethnically Jewish to adopt Jewish customs or practice). I'm going to replace it with something which is more correct and I hope acceptable. DJ Clayworth 22:10, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The intention of the sentence appears to be that, Messianic Judaism is not considered Jewish by any branch of Judaism (and that is true). "Racial" jewishness is not a factor, in this judgment (there are Buddhists of Jewish ancestry, too. But, Buddhism has nothing to do with Jewishness). Exactly so - in my irrelevant opinion, unjustly - Christianity is judged by all branches of Judaism to have nothing to do with Jewishness, either, except a long ago and now expired status as a Jewish 'sect'. On the other issue, it is not true that Christianity + Jewish practice is unattractive to some, or even many, Gentile Christians. Mkmcconn 01:50, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Many Israelis are atheistic by religion but not discounted as Jews. This is because Jewishness is considered an ethnic identity. Ergo, it is likewise illogical to deny that people who are Christians by religion but have Jewish ethnicity are Jews.138.130.201.204 04:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You've missed the point; Jews can practice Buddhism and Hinduism too, and many do; but that doesn't turn Buddhism and Hinduism into Judaism. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nazarenes & Ebionites

It seems like such an odd omission to leave out any mention in the first two paragraphs of Ebionites or Nazarenes, that the omission ( purposeful?) should be noted and explained. Wetman 07:28, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Humanistic Judaism

I have changed the part about Reconstructionism accepting the Messianic movement as a valid form of Judaism. That is incorrect. The Reconstructionist school does not accept the Messianic movement, any more than Orthodox Judaism does. A few voices within Reconstructionism accept it - but that's a far cry from saying that Reconstructionism as a whole does. Davidcannon 22:25, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My mistake, I was basing that on a discussion I had with some Reconstructionists. Their comments seemed to be about ~~what you have termed Notzrim~~ Netzarim messianists and not others. Apparently nothing in the Netzarim belief system goes against Reconstructionist ideas of what Judaism really is. Or even Orthodox Judaism I now discover, whereas Many Reform schools are considered just as Apostate as Messianic Jews. Zestauferov 18:17, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Orthodox Netzarim Beit Din

"The Orthodox Netzarim Beit Din excepted, the Orthodox Beit Din system (the only universally recognised body of Jewish authority)."

does the Orthodox Beit Din system recognize Netzrim Beit Din and if so why? what makes Orthodox Netzarim Beit Din an exception that even reform and reconstructionists do not enjoy?

Not as far as I am aware. This article seems highly suspect vis a vis NPOV when it comes to the "Orthodox Netzarim", which, as far as I know, is a tiny and marginal group even within the Messianic movement. For example, it also appears to denigrate the major counter-Missionary movements, and states that only the "Netzarim Bet Din" has been effective in getting Jews out of Messianic congregations. Not only is this not documented anywhere I know, but one could obviously argue that moving from some other Messianic congregations to the "Netzarim" congregation is not "getting out". Jayjg 00:03, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dear 64.107.183.84, please disregard Jayig's comments as he really doesn't know what he is talking about. For a full explanation of why please see Talk:Nazarene Judaism.Zestauferov 06:07, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

i would imagine the only way this movement can "grow" is through missionary work, but isn't that illegal in israel?

No, it's not illegal. That's a common misconception. What is illegal in Israel is to offer financial or material incentives to change one's religion. Open missionary work is discouraged, and missionaries can have a tough time getting work or visitor permits renewed. Citizens doing evangelism, however, are free to do so. Charges have often been brought against messianic groups by their opponents, but have seldom stood up in the courts. As most Messianics continue to regard themselves as Jews, they seldom change their registration from "Jewish" to "Christian," and therefore those proselytizing them cannot be convicted of offering incentives to "convert," as conversion in Israel is a formal legal process. Where Messianics do suffer official discrimination is under the Law of Return: the courts have ruled that the right of return guaranteed to all Jews does not apply to Messianics. Messianics who are physically in Israel as citizens, however, suffer no official persecution, although there is considerable social prejudice and discrimination. David Cannon 09:53, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The law of return restriction on messianics is because they are considered christians but it does not apply to legitimate Jewish Netzarim who are considered by the legal bodies that matter to be legal Jews.Zestauferov 08:41, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that there have been rulings by the Israeli government that the Law of Return applies to "Netzarim"? Jayjg 19:53, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes the certification that the Yirimeyahu and his wife openly confessing their beliefs made Aliya to Israel under the law of return. You can purchase a copy here http://www.netzarim.co.il/Mall/NetzShop/NetzShop.htm#Netzarim%20Papers Zestauferov 04:55, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So I have to buy their book to see their claim that they did so? And in any event, how does the book prove this? Confirmation directly from a government source, particularly one that this is a general policy for "Netzarim", would be vastly more persuasive. Jayjg 14:44, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No are you visually impaired? Before you get all huffy again, that is not ad-hominem it is a genuine request for info to help me understand why you can never find any of the references I give you on a page. You can buy a copy of the evidence you request precisely look under the papers section. You don't get anymore government source than government issued legal papers. Don't tell me now you actually are going to have the cheek to ask someone to fax you a copy for free. The source is there if you want it in black and white as solid as any traceable ISBN number. If you have any friends in Israeli immigration ask them to check it out for you. Do you realise if anyone gave a book reference it would be acceptable even if the book is untraceable or out of print so that no one can track it down. It is accepted on good faith. Now here you are so irritated by the fact that Netzarim are real Jews and allowed to emigrate to Israel under the Law of return. Why is this? What is so grating that you cannot stand the truth? Why are you in particular more than any of the other people interested in Jews & Judaism on wiki unable to accept the facts? I am interested to know.Zestauferov 15:07, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As before, I have strongly suggested not using the word "you" in any responses to me; this will help avoid the steady stream of Ad hominems, something which have been used and defended liberally in this Talk: page in the past, with apparently little comprehension of the term. Regarding the points raised, first I am obviously correct that the documents in question will have to be purchased. Second, the documents in question, if valid, will merely document the fact that the founder of this tiny sect made aliyah under the Law of Return, is considered a Jew, and was at one time a member of an Orthodox synagogue. They will not confirm that this individual made aliyah under this Law while proclaiming a belief in Jesus as the Messiah, nor will they confirm that the Israeli government has a policy of allowing "Netzarim" to make aliyah under the Law of Return. The original question was whether you had any evidence that there have been rulings by the Israeli government that the Law of Return applies to "Netzarim"; these documents, even if valid, will not in any way show that. Finally, the last half of the paragraph, dealing with various irrelevant and ad hominem questions regarding my motivations, emotional states, abilities, etc. is, as usual, ignored. Jayjg 15:49, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are clutching at straws. The point is that Netzarim are not distinguished from other orthodox Jews. Kol Tov.Zestauferov 19:42, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, except for the facts that the movement was founded in the 1980s by a former Baptist preacher and his wife, and that they consider Jesus to be the Jewish Messiah, facts not true of any Orthodox Jewish movement but quite common in Messianic Judaism, it is possible that you are correct. Unfortunately, we have no way of really knowing that. Jayjg 14:25, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes we do and I have toled you repeatedly how CYLOR. Or go through OU. Kol TovZestauferov 17:23, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As I've told you repeatedly, I've spoken to several Orthodox Rabbis on the subject. They all say that they've never heard of the movement (which is hardly surprising, considering that it consists at most of a few dozen individuals). They also all say that a belief that Jesus is the Messiah is incompatible with Orthodox Judaism. Jayjg 18:47, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jayig wrote: " (which is hardly surprising, considering that it consists at most of a few dozen individuals)." Please give specific details of the source for this. I do not understand precisely (since my own understanding of messiah hampers me), but as usual, as with everything else, they do not go against the Halakhah just very much in fact like the Lubavitchers (whom I also don't understand). Your "several" rabbis didn't say they would check it out for you? How strange. I wonder precisely how you worded your question.Zestauferov

As I've explained in other Talk: pages, I assert that they consist of at most a few dozen individuals because they are mentioned nowhere except on their website. I'd love to be proven wrong; if you have any evidence whatsoever about their membership numbers, I'd be very happy to see it. Regarding "they do not go against the Halakhah", one of the 13 Fundamental Principles of Orthodox Jewish belief is that the Messiah has not yet come; insisting that Jesus is the Messiah contradicts this Fundamental Principle. Regarding Lubavitchers, many Haredi Rabbis (including the most senior Haredi Rabbi) have indeed been saying for years that they are also not part of Orthodox Judaism. Regarding my questions, I asked several Orthodox Rabbis "1. Have you ever heard of a movement known as Netzarim or Nazarene Judaism? 2. Is this group part of Orthodox Judaism? 3. Can a group which, or person who, believes that Jesus is the Messiah, but not God or part of a Trinity, be part of Orthodox Judaism?" Their consistent answers were "1. No, 2. I've never heard of them, and 3. No". Jayjg 17:50, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and the OU website, on the topic of Messiah in its "Jewish Philosophy and Belief" [1] links to two articles, both at the Aish HaTorah website (another Orthodox organization). The first, titled "Why Don't Jews Believe in Jesus?" explains (not surprisingly) why Jews don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah. [2] The second, titled "The Messiah", makes it clear in that in Jewish belief the Messiah has not come. [3]. It also lists, as its first item, the 13 Principles of Jewish Faith", the fundamental beliefs of an Orthodox Jew. Principle 12 states "I believe with perfect faith in the coming of the Messiah. How long it takes, I will await His coming every day." [4] In other words, according to Orthodox Jewish belief, the Messiah has not yet come. This would rule out from Orthodox Jewish belief that notion that Jesus was the Messiah. Jayjg 22:32, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thankyou, I am well aware. I told you that you could check out the netzarim through the OU and you can. Good Luck.Zestauferov 17:15, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why would the OU insist that Orthodox Jews must not accept that Jesus is the Messiah, and indeed must accept that the Messiah has not yet come, and still include "Netzarim" (a group which insists that Jesus is the Messiah) as a legitimate Orthodox group? Also, who specifically should I speak to or e-mail at the OU for this information? Please provide a phone number of e-mail name for me to contact; the name of the person there that you spoke to about this would be best. Thanks. Jayjg 17:39, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I got spammed in a Messanic discusison by one of these Netzarim. I decided to track down their web site to see what they were claiming. Their position appeared to be that Yeshua, while the Messiah, was (their POV) not God, and not arguing for any substianial changes to rabbinic Judaism. They then made a bit deal about their acceptance by certain OJ groups, and of the immigration. I don't find this hard to believe--they claim that He was Messiah, but that this makes no difference, and that everyone should convert to a belief system equivalen to OJ. NathanZook 02:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hebrew Christianity

I wonder is anyone will object to my redirecting Messianic Judaism Here. Hebrew Chrsitianity does seem to be the more PC term.Zestauferov 06:05, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If there are any objections of course please feel free to undo.Zestauferov 06:08, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Don't merge with Jewish Christians

Please don't take this personally, Sam, as you're not the first to suggest this merger. I have reverted the comment, however, as I know quite a lot of people in both the Messianic and Hebrew Christian movements, and many if not most of them would not agree that they are one and the same thing. Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians have a lot in common: both are (mostly) persons of acknowledged birth or ancestry who (a) believe that Yeshua/Jesus is the Messiah, and (b) are proud of their Jewish heritage and want to retain it. But there are also significant differences between the two movements - differences that are big enough to justify the case for separate classification, in my opinion. A parallel case would be Baptists and Methodists: both are Protestants, but that doesn't make them the same thing, and Wikipedia rightly has separate articles for those two denominations.

I'm grossly oversimplifying things, I know, but in a nutshell:

Messianic Jews consider their primary identity to be Jewish, and belief in Yeshua to be the logical conclusion of their Jewishness (the nearly unanimous disagreement of their fellow-Jews notwithstanding). They try to structure their worship (in varying degrees) according to Jewish norms, they circumcise their sons and (mostly) abstain from pork and other nonkosher foods, and (often) observe the Sabbath. Many (but by no means all) do not use the label "Christian" to describe themselves.
Hebrew Christians identify themselves primarily as Christians. They are (mostly) members of Protestant and Catholic congregations, (usually) are not so strict about observing kosher or the Sabbath, and are (generally) assimilated culturally into the Christian mainstream, although they retain a strong sense of their Jewish identity which they, like Messianic Jews, strongly desire to pass on to their children.

The boundary between the two movements is blurred; some individuals (e.g. Moishe Rosen) seem to straddle it effortlessly, but it is there nonetheless. Because of the differences between the two movements, I do not think it fair to treat them as one, any more than I would treat Baptists and Methodists as a single entity. David Cannon 05:29, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

David, I think you have stated the distinction correctly and adequately. Your observations coincide with mine (and I believe that of most people who are well acquainted with people in both groups). While I understand that those who stand in opposition to both groups would find it easy to lump both groups together as "them", to merge the two groups seems to me to be like a Muslim wanting to merge Protestant Christians and Roman Catholic Christians into one unified group of infidels. But regardless, Wikipedia is about defining and explaining what actually IS, not about redefining reality in terms of our POV. Merging the two groups would be such a POV redefinition. Chad A. Woodburn 10:20 pm EST, Dec. 26, 2004.

Do these words mean anything?

When my wife and I were looking for a church home eight years ago, she came across a denominational listing, "Messianic Synagogues". She asked, "What are they?" I answered, "Jews who follow Jesus". What I meant was, "Jews who practice Judaism and follow Jesus". I figured that if they called it a synagogue, they practiced Judaism, even if the yellow pages didn't exactly see it that way. If the OU rejects our claims to be a Judaism, then we must also have the ability to reject the claims of others practice "Messianic Judaism".

If we admit that the term "Messianic Judaism" is not a contradiction in terms, then as a matter of English construction, it refers to a Judiasm which honors the Galilean as Messiah. The problem is that this is a very young movement, and bottom-up. We did not start as an academic disagreement, ala Lutheranism, but as individuals who realized that they don't see things the same way that others in their prior groups do.

I believe that following the "Torah made flesh" and the "Written Torah" (aka "the law") are incomplete without each other.
I believe that God's special calling of the Jews remains in full effect, and that gentiles that accept the work of Messiah are "joined in" to this calling.

Whatever this is, it is in no way "Evangelical Christianity".

The youngness of the movement, its bottom-up evolution, and the natural tendency of continuum make this problemactic, because it seems likely to me that most self-professed practitioners of Messianic Judaism are in fact practicing Evangelical or Charismatic Christianity with minor changes.

To me, the question should be answered anthropologically. Is there a group of religious adherants whose practice and beliefs differ from various forms of Judaism about as much as these forms vary from each other while accepting the Galilean as the Messiah? If so, then that group should be classicified as "Messianic Judaism" whether or not it is accepted (a political issue) by these groups. Please note that there is a whole lot of rejecting of various groups as "legitamate Judaisms" by other groups within Judiasm.

Likewise, a "church in a prayer shall" would be Hebrew Christian.

Which brings up the whole "Jews for Jesus" thing. I don't blame an uneducated person for classifying them as a part of Messianic Judaism, but they reject Torah & want to see Jews in Church. How can this be a Judaism? (I accept Torah & want to see Gentiles in synagogue, btw.)

I've edited the beliefs statement to reflect the "Torah pole" mentioned in the article.

NathanZook 04:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Traditional Judaism has always been Messianic, in that it anticipates and desires the coming of a Messiah. Christianity has always stated that that Messiah was Jesus, and generally also stated that Jesus was God. In addition, it has added a set of scriptures (the Greek Scriptures) to the Hebrew Bible, which describe Jesus, and outline various articles of their faith, primarily as promulgated by Paul. These all are hallmarks of Christianity which distinguish it from Judaism, and also apply to 99% of all "Messianic Jewish" congregations and individuals. In addition, the movement itself has been far more successful at attracting non-Jews (particularly practising Christians) than it has been at attracting Jews (and those have typically been non-practisiing). A movement which is comprised of a majority of practising Christians, and a minority of non-practising Jews, and which follows the basic tenets and scriptures of Christianity, is fairly easy to characterize to the outside observer, regardless of the "pole" of the individual church. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:44, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Traditional rabbinic Judaism is never called `messianic Judaism'. That term is used only for the Christian groups, or the quasi-Christian groups. RK 01:23, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)" (above)

Yes. How does this address my point? Jayjg ^(talk) 07:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nathan Responds

No Good Choices

I dislike the term "Messianic Judaism" being used exclusively to refer to those who follow a particular Messiah. Certianly Rabbi Akiva, who kicked out the followers of the Nararene in favor of his messiah has equal title. But we are stuck with an imperfect use-mention. I know of no competing term. Actually, the term "Christian" is almost as bad, since "Christ" is merely Greek for "Messiah".

The "competing term" is "Hebrew Christian". Jayjg ^(talk) 14:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not for those of us who pray from the Artscroll Sidur! I fully agree that many people who say they practice Messianic Judaism would recoil if you say, "Oh, so what you do is a form of Judaism?" Likewise, many might accept the term "Hebrew Christian" for themselves or even claim that they are equivalent. (If either of us thought they were, we would be done...)

I understand that you would like for us to accept the term "Hebrew Christian". But we cannot, for reason previously stated. NathanZook

Artscroll Siddur? Read pages 178 through 181 very carefully. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When I read the Thirteen Principles the first time, my immediate reaction was, "This looks like a point-by-point refutation of Scholasticism". That's of course not entirely accurate. For purposes of our discussion, however, I submit that Reformed, Reconstructionist, and Humanist Judaism (and probably even Conservative) are going to have at least as much trouble with this (minimal) formulation of medevial Judaism as I am. My only problem is with #7, which I can skate if I have to. NathanZook 08:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nazarene as Messiah ==> Not Judaism?

Maybe I can break an impasse. Do you consider Jacov ha Tzadik (James the Elder) and the "myriads zealous for Torah" around 50 CE to have been members of a Jewish sect? If not, you argue against their contemporaries. If so, then you agree that a Jewish sect can accept the Nazarene as Messiah, Messiah as "Son of God", and the writings of Paul as scripture. Yes, I'm reaching back a long ways. But I have to. I disagree with almost everything that has happened since then.

Please read strawman. At the time thinking Jesus was the Messiah did not mean that one's faith was not Judaism. There have been 2,000 years of water under the bridge since then. Jesus is much more than a Messiah to Christians, and Paul's innovations and Christianity's new Greek Scriptures are not part of Judaism either. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Who says? Paul was Jewish and a student of Rabbi Gamaliel. The New Testament was written entirely by Jews (including Luke). Therefore the NT is just as Jewish as the Talmud.138.130.201.204 04:33, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Paul claimed to be Jewish, and a student of Gamaliel, but he was an inherently unreliable fellow. Luke, of course, was not a Jew, nor is there much evidence that the other authors were. More importantly, of course, what difference does it make if the books were written by Jews? Just because a Jew writes a book it doesn't make it a Jewish book. And most importantly, what difference does it make to this Talk: page or article? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:41, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This debate about what 'Jewishness' is or is not, is one of the central issues of the Messianic Judaism movement. You are sorely missing the point: 'Hebrew Christians' have been told, quite forcefully, for almost two thousand years, that they can NOT be Jewish. Messianic Jews, on the other hand, have been told for just as long, that they can NOT become Christians. 129.24.93.219 23:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Messianic Judaism vs Christianity

1) I disagree that you must accept Bar Kokhba as Messiah to stay in the Jewish community. (Our rejection is what got us kicked out.) 2) I disagree that either the Nazarene or Paul ever intended their followers to abandon Torah. 3) I disagree with the move from Sabbath to Sunday, (good book, btw) and from Passover to Easter. Let alone Christmas and the rest. 4) I reject the authority of the so-called Ecumenical councils. I reject the "two natures" formulation of the Chalcedon Council, and have serious problems with usual formulation of the Trinity. (I really like what Kaballah has to say on it, btw.) 5) I reject dispensationalism and replacement theology.

In short, my disagreements with Christianity go back to within 75 years of my disagreements with Traditional Judaism, and they do so in a manner that consistently prefers Judaism.

0) Please read strawman. Really.

1) Not accepting Bar Kokhba as messiah was not what got early Christians "kicked out".

2) Unprovable and irrelevant.

3) Irrelevant.

4) Irrelevant.

5) Irrelevant.

--Jayjg ^(talk) 14:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Dr. Michael White in Jesus to Christianity makes a very strong case that Paul's innovations were pretty much confined to bring Torah to the Gentiles (who needed a LOT of help) without requiring conversion to Judaism.

2) By this point, most Gentile proto-Christians did nothing to support the Bar Kokhba revolt. The Jewish ones did, until Rabbi Akiva declared (not "contemplated", as the [Bar Kokhba] page erroneously asserts) that he was Messiah & that to support the revolt was to support him as Messiah. That was when the "Nazarenes" got kicked out of Judaism. In a few decades they would be effectively kicked out of Christianity.

Sigh. Whatever. The Talk: pages are not the place to debate these matters, unless you feel it is somehow relevant to article content. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then where, pray tell, is the proper place for debate, if not the 'talk' page? Discussion related to the same general topic is not 'irrelevant'. The talk pages are very interesting, providing a novel forum unmatched on most other 'web' pages. 129.24.93.219 23:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emerging Definition?

My definition of Messianic Judaism? A Judaism that honors Torah--written, oral, and made flesh. I'm not alone, btw. A recent posting for a rabbinic position at one of our (UMJC) congregations stated, "applicants must have a high opinion of Oral Torah." How many Reformed Rabbis make that cut?

"Made flesh" is not part of Judaism; it's Christian man-worship. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Attraction verses Searched Out

I'm not sure that I can accept the charge that I was "attracted" to Messianic Judaism. I reached a point in my walk where I would have willed it into existance if it were not already there. What I mean is that I came to the conclusion that the Christian repudiation of the Feasts in particular & Torah in general was unwarranted (and with tragic results), and does not please God, that my only real problem with traditional Judaism is its rejection of the Nazarene (and its hoarding of Torah). That is, I wanted a Judaism that honored the Nazarene as Messiah.

Why are you putting this here? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Facts on the Ground

Yes, our congregations are by and large majority Gentile. I believe Rashi said the ratio would be about 280,000 to 1. But just as there are majority Jewish organizations that are refered to as "goyish", the opposite is possible. In this last statement, you seem to demand that there be no place between Hebrew Christianity (as mentioned above) and traditional Judaism. That was probably almost true up until the 1960's, but "times, they are a-changin'".

A majority Gentile movement, following the Christian messiah, using the Christian Bible. As for "majority Jewish organizations", please read red herring. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Messy Result

Again, this movement is not a denominational split within Christianity or Judaism. It is an organic movement which is very much in the process of defining itself. People whose beliefs have not changed have nevertheless changed their self-identification. People whose beliefs have changed radically have clung to their old self-identification. While there were a few prior pioneers, this movement is in practice less than forty years old. Was Christianity well-defined by the fall of the second Temple? Did Luther, et al have their doctrines in place in forty years? I think that an accurate description needs to emphasize the youth of this development, so far as religious movements go.

Finally

Don't forget--it's "Blessed is Mordichai, cursed is ~~Haman~~".

NathanZook 04:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you're using the Talk: pages for the purpose they are intended. What outcome do you hope for based on your comments? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I object strenously to the tone and implications of the overview, as well as several parts of the body. I'm not stupid enough (nor properly prepared by my own estimation) to attempt a major rewrite of any portion myself, though, so I felt it best to come here and attempt to address specific concerns.

NathanZook 00:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Famous Declarations of Jewish Support for Jesus as Messiah

In his Jewish Antiquities, the 'Roman' (Jewish) historian, Flavius Josephus, had this to say about Jesus: "At this time appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of the people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the Messiah. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us [the Roman-appointed Hasmonean priesthood], condemned him to the cross, those who loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out." (Flavius Josephus, 'Jewish Antiquities', 18. 63-64.) 129.24.93.219 23:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]