Talk:Jesus/Archive 71

This is an archive of past discussions about Jesus. 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.

Archive 65

←

Archive 69

→

Discussions about various images for article

Sermon on the Mount

Someone add this pic to article please... Jesus' "Sermon on the Mount":

Jesus is considered by many historians to be an example of a "charismatic" religious leader, a prime example of "charismatic authority."

.

Someone please put this pic somewhere (anywhere!) in the article; I cannot because I'm an Anon-user. THANKS! --152.163.101.10 10:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this image should replace the contentious baptism image? After all, the baptism image isn't even in the baptism section, as there's no room for it and the Temptation of Christ. The above image better fits in the Ministry section IMO. —Aiden 14:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it totally belongs in the Ministry section (where the baptism image is currently) because that's the only section that touches on Jesus's teachings. Haldrik 08:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the baptism, it's an important event and one of the few things scholars agree on. It probably deserves an image (if not this one). If there is an appealing baptism picture somewhere, I'd prefer it over the temptation image (even tho the temptation picture is kinda fun). Haldrik 08:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Forensic" Image

Should this image be added? --DrBat 23:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oooooh. Very long discussion on that. Please see the archives. Kevin/Last1in 01:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, not really here. But it DOES belong in the Historical background of Jesus and probably in the Historical Jesus. Haldrik 07:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That image used to be in this article under the historicity section, and it used to be in the Historical Jesus article as well. I'm not exactly sure why they got removed. I think it has to do with the philosophers info box that someone tried to insert at the top of both articles. They included that image as the main image of Jesus which caused the debate (and I think in the process removed the image from its old placement to avoid redundency). Since the image is no longer at the top of the article, I wouldn't mind seeing it reappear in the historicity section, as long as the caption is clear that it is NOT an image of Jesus, just an artist reconstruction of one of his peers.--Andrew c 14:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If the image belongs anywhere, it would certainly belong in Historical Jesus. If you check that article's Talk page and archives, you'll find about 7 (printed) pages of argument over that image. The argument started the day after the image appeared at a press conference and runs through last week; another half dozen pages (the month of May and the first part of June) have gone missing. I'm surprised that Andrew doesn't recall why it got pulled from that article: Even in Historical Jesus, there is little support (outside of Thadman, Andrew & Haldrik) for what is variously called the "fictitious image" and "some guy who's not Jesus". I can see both sides of the issue (it provides an excellent idea of people then might have looked like, but it was never meant to be a portrait of Jesus) and really don't much mind if the image is in or out, but why open that can of worms here where even template placement becomes an entrenched battle? We have on this page some of the greatest artistic representations of the last 1800 years. I suggest we let the argument over this image storm elsewhere. When that argument is over and people in the "real world" begin to (or refuse to) accept that image as one of the Christ, then put it here with appropriate context. Kevin/Last1in 18:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ravenna mosaic image

The "intro" image of the article is the 6th c. mosaic of Jesus. I like this image a lot. It has both antiquity and impressive realism which is somewhat rare. It even has the "pan-Mediterranean" features that look more "Jewish". These are all good reasons to use this image here. ... On the other hand, in the mosaic, Jesus is making a "sign of the cross" like a Christian priest ... and this is horrendously anachronistic. ... I feel this image really belongs in the section depicting Trinitarian view. In fact, while doing the "sign of the cross", he would be saying, "In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit", and his hand is currently at the position of "and the Son". This makes it very cool for the Trinitarian section. I dont want to move it tho until we can find another appealing image that can serve as a nice intro but also represents Jesus with as much historical accuracy as possible. (But not that "forensic" picture because the one thing we know for a fact about that picture is that it is NOT Jesus, and that just bugs me.) Just a heads up. Haldrik 06:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, whether He is making a sign of the cross is interpretation. The mosaic is static, and simply shows the Christ holding up two fingers. While probably symbolizing the sign of the cross, this could simply be a gesture requesting attention, or that of a teacher instructing supplicants. In my eyes, it's also the most neutral image for the header that is both historic and beautiful. Kevin/Last1in 19:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"This could simply be a gesture requesting attention." No it cant. It can only be a sign of the cross. Iconography is a formal "language" with strict meanings. It is to inform an illiterate viewer that this person represents "the Son" (et filii) by the position of the hand. The solar-cross halo also signifies Jesus. To represent Jesus as somebody who would make a sign of the cross isnt accurate nor "neutral". The closest thing Jesus himself would have seen would be the kind of priestly blessing by a Jewish Kohen. Haldrik 00:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the gesture used for the giving of a blessing, not necessarily a sign of the cross, common in iconography. The three raised figures represent the three persons of the trinity; the two inward fingers represent the two natures of Christ, human and divine. Personally, I think it is a beautiful image and quite fitting for the article. Lostcaesar 17:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"The three raised figures represent the three persons of the trinity; the two inward fingers represent the two natures of Christ, human and divine." It's definitely fitting for the Trinitarian views section. It's historically anachronistic tho. Haldrik 17:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, a "blessing" and a "sign of the cross" are the same thing. IIRC all blessings by a Christian priest involve the sign of the cross. Haldrik 17:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A sign of the cross is a kind of blessing, but a blessing is not necessarily a sign of the cross. For example, people often do not make the arrangement of fingers when giving a sign of the cross, but a priest would form that gesture when making a blessing. Whatever the case, I don’t see why this should be moved. I don’t understand how it is anachronistic, or why that would really matter – its an icon. We use statues of Roman Emperors for their pages, even thought the images are obviously stylized to manifest Roman might and imperial magnificence. Lostcaesar 17:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"I don’t understand how it is anachronistic." It's anachronistic because Jesus, himself a 1st-century Jew, never saw the ritual of the sign of the cross because it didnt exist yet. He cant have preformed it. As best as possible, an encyclopedic article must clearly distinguish between who Jesus actually was, versus the many cultural and artistic fantasies about him. It's similar to the problem of representing the ancient King David with Michaelangelo's nude statue of King David which is uncircumcised, which is impossible and inaccurate. It's even anachronistic in the sense of using Italian Renaissance ideals of (uncircumcized) beauty to represent a (circumcized) Jew who lived in the Iron Age. By contrast, it's ok to use the stylized statues of the Roman emperors because usually the emperors themselves commissioned them. So, their own cultural and artistic ideal is accurately reflected. Haldrik 17:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

And icon is not an artistic fantasy, and this page is not about simply a reconstruction of what a first century Jew would or would not have done. It is about Jesus in the context of the historically developing understanding of him. I think Byzantine iconography is an excellent lead for such a presentation. Lostcaesar 19:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I mean "fantasy" in the sense of free use of imagination, as opposed to what literally happened. "It is about Jesus in the context of the historically developing understanding of him." Exactly. Which is why the different "historical understandings" must be clearly distinguished from eachother. Some of these "historical understandings" are dead wrong. For example, the Medieval Period is loaded with various notions that we find silly today. Haldrik 19:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not meant to be a historically accurate image. It is art first and foremost. I think people are taking things a bit to literally. —Aiden 19:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"People taking things a bit too literally". That's the problem. When it comes to religion, people tend to take symbolic notions or imaginary scenarios literally. Because this is a wellknown problem, an encyclopedic article must be especially clear to distinguish reality from "art". Some people assume that Jesus was a Roman Catholic or a Baptist or some other modern kind of Christian, and Jesus wasnt. Haldrik 19:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, the method for performing the sign of the cross, which the Ravenna mosaic depicts, did not come into existence until the sixth century (or just before it). This Catholic icon from sixth-century Ravenna, Italy, is essencially an advertisement to promote this newly-invented way of doing the sign of the cross. Haldrik 20:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that really just your intepretation? —Aiden 15:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is, the image depicts Jesus performing a Catholic/Orthodox ritual that existed in the 6th century, but didnt exist in the 1st century. Jesus never performed this ritual or even saw it. It's anachronistic to confuse Jesus with this ritual. Because most Protestant Christians dont recognize the validity of this ritual, it isnt neutral to use this image as a general introduction. Because Jesus himself was a Jew, it isnt neutral to use this image as a general introduction. Haldrik 00:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well then under that logic any image of Jesus with a halo or a cross in it should also be removed as those symbols did not exist during his time. And not to engage in a theological debate, but I am a Protestant Christian and I'm the one who uploaded the image and placed it at the top. I highly doubt any point of view is being conveyed by the image. —Aiden 04:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Haldrick's logic is sound. This is not an image of Jesus. It is certainly anachronistic since it incorporates elements that could not have existed at the time of Christ, and only presents an "artistic fantasy" of what Christ might have looked like. Haldrick, please upload your photograph of Jesus so we can incorporate that into the article header. What? No Photo? Hmm. That's a puzzler. So I guess we need to strip all the anachronistic artistic fantasies and leave the article with twenty-three pages of text. Alternately, we could leave this anachronistic artistic fantasy in place since it is as (or more) neutral than most and by far more beautiful that the alternative anachronistic artistic fantasies available. Consensus anyone? Kevin/Last1in 21:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself. —Aiden 01:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"So I guess we need to strip all the anachronistic artistic fantasies and leave the article with twenty-three pages of text." ... Or we can select a image that is a reconstruction, using features known to exist in 1st century Judea. Strive to be as accurate as possible. Haldrik 03:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This article isn't just about the "historical Jesus". It is also about the various perspectives of Jesus, both secular and religious. —Aiden 03:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This article isnt about the "ficticious Jesus" either. And if it is, it needs to be clearly labled as fiction. --Haldrik 17:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Another truly stellar idea, Haldrik! Let's put in a recent photograph of a skull that is not that of Jesus coated with digital clay in a way that a few people decided fits said non-Jesus skull, overlaid with pigment that might or might not be similar to the hair- and skin-tones of people who lived near Jesus in the same century. An image, I might remind you, the creators of which have stated was never meant to represent Jesus Himself. They admit that no one knows the colour of skin in 1st Century Judea since no colour representations have survived. They, like artists for the previous eighteen-hundred years, admit they are guessing based on current, limited knowledge. That's so much better than a truly beautiful image, intended to represent the actual subject of this article, that has endured millennia. MUCH "more accurate" to have a pseudoscientific fantasy than an artistic one, don't you think? Kevin/Last1in 12:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The tone of the above comment comes across as sarcastic. I'm not sure why so much emotion needs to be invested in this issue. It's a question of being as clear and as accurate as possible. --Haldrik 17:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

An educated guess isn't equal to or less reliable than something known to be false. Limited knowledge is a fact of being human. But when something is *known* to be false, its falseness must be taken into account. That's how human knowledge works. Science (and a good encyclopedia) isnt omniscient, but it eliminates any false assumption (like Jesus being a 6th-century Catholic priest who gestures a sign of the cross). The opening picture sets the tone of the article in a powerful way, and in this case the Ravenna mosaic imbues the reader with a false sense of Jesus. --Haldrik 17:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There are so many diverse images of Jesus. ANd since none are contemporary or reliably accurate, each really says as much about the artist (and his or her intended audience) and their relationship to Jesus, or beliefs/feelings about Jesus, than about Jesus himself. Therefore, I do not think any of these images should be in the article. Instead, i think Wikipedia deserves an article dedicated exclusively to an article on images of Jesus, with interpretation and commentary from art historical as well as theological points of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, images about Jesus say much more about the artists and the audiances (and often dont even intend to depict Jesus himself). Perhaps, all images should relocate to a separate article where they can be analyzed. .. Probably to the Images of Jesus article. At this time the article notes that any image doesnt directly reflect Jesus himself, but it doesnt focus on explaining what features of the artist's culture the image does reflect. Haldrik 04:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I had to smile. Check out this 8th-century Medieval manuscript depicting two popes (Gelasius on left and Gregory on right). Compare its popes with the two 6th-century Ravenna mosaics depicting Jesus. Notice how Jesus's clothing resembles Gelasius's papal clothing on left, while Jesus's sign of the cross resembles Gregory's on right. In other words, the Ravenna mosaic seems to depict Jesus as if he was a 6th-century Italian Catholic pope. (It seems most 6th-century depictions of Jesus clad him in the prohibitively expensive Tyrian purple dye, which few beyond the Byzantine emperor or Roman pope could afford.) --Haldrik 04:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in this article can be proved to be a literal description of Jesus. Every single section of the article deals with views, whether historical views or religious views. Likewise, these images are views. If you're advocating removing these images, you'd need to remove pretty much all text as well. Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is. —Aiden 14:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"Nothing in this article can be proved." Nevertheless, some things can be disproved. The accuracy of some claims is more probable than the accuracy of other claims. For example: claims about when Jesus was born. No date can be "proved" at this point, but many dates can be disproved. So there is a range of probabilites. Personally, I'm confident Jesus was born in year 2 BCE, albeit for me 3 or even 1 BCE isnt impossible. I'm aware of the scholars who argue for 6-4 BCE, and they have good reason to do so, but I have a hunch they're wrong. The arguments for 2 BCE require slightly different assumptions (including a period of coregency between Herod the Great and his son) but the arguments are just as good, and in some ways better (much more support from ancient historians). The point is, not everything can be proven, but much can be disproven. I'm satisfied with the current range of birth dates from 8-2 BCE. The analogy of birth dates applies to many aspects of who Jesus was. While our perception of Jesus himself is "blurry", there is some genuine insight. We know for a fact, Jesus wasnt a 6th-century Italian priest. --Haldrik 19:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Messianic "Jews" ???

Messianic Jews hold that Jesus is the prophesied Jewish Messiah. Often a tension between Jewish Monotheism and Christian Trinitarianism promotes a diversity of opinions about Jesus's divine status.

Messianic Jewish groups can hold distinct yet overlapping identities. Generally, ethnic Jews preserve their Jewish culture, especially biblical holidays, such as Shabat and Pesakh, along with some who strive to uphold the Rabbinic legal tradition, called Halakha. They feel Jesus is part of this Jewish tradition and can satisfy Judaism's requirements for the Messiah, at least potentially, even if some dispute which requirements are authoritative.

Members of Messianic synagogues who are non-Jews are sometimes considered "Messianic Jews". These non-Jews preserve their Christian theology, and in this framework, feel biblical promises of God cannot be revoked. They hold that God made an eternal covenant with Jews, choosing them as a distinctive kinship (Hebrew: עַם, am). Thus, God upholds the Jewish people eternally and continues to divinely inspire Jewish spirituality in a distinctive way. These Messianic Jews feel Jesus himself expressed and championed the ideals of the Jewish people. They feel personal affinity with Jewish tradition and especially the Hebrew Bible.

Usually, ethnic Jews do not call themselves Messianic Jews if they adopt Christianity but do not preserve Jewish customs. They simply call themselves Christians of whichever denomination. Historically, Christianity has defined Jesus according to non-Jewish cultures and often expressed hostility to Jewish culture, even Jewish customs instituted by the Hebrew Bible. Oppositely, Rabbinic Judaism has defined Jews who adopt Christianity as cutting themselves off from the Jewish people. Messianic Judaism is complex and controversial, but noteworthy because of its relevance to both Jesus and Jesus's Jewishness.

A prominent group of Messianic Jews is Jews for Jesus, part of a loose affiliation of Evangelical Christianity, which itself esteems the Hebrew Bible.

Umm, most Messianic "Jews" are not ethnicly Jews. Only a minority are. Can someone fix this article to reflect that. 203.217.83.31 10:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

All Messianic Jews are ethnically Jews, otherwise they wouldn't be Messianic Jews but simply Christians of some stripe.

BTW, the talk page is for editing discussions and not for broad sweeping attacks. Hence I have removed your post above. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That is censorship. Exactly my point only a minority are actually ethnicly Jews. Which doesn't make them notable at all. 203.217.83.31 14:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So you're accusing editors of censorship all the while advocating the removal of material you believe is not notable. Hmmm. —Aiden 14:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, to mr. anon's defense, he seems to be avocating the correction of what he perceives to be an error rather than censorship (who knows, he might be right about notability). And reading the Messianic Judaism article, I don't actually see anything about them having to be ethnically Jews, it seems to be more of a self-identified sort of religion which supposedly thinks of itself as "not really Christian, by having some "Judaism" mixed in" or something to that effect. Homestarmy 17:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, Home's. 203 is advocating the correction of what he perceived to be an error. Only, he is mistaken in his perception. The vast majority of Messianic Jews come from Jewish families and are ethnically Jews.

Regarding the censorship accusation, I believe 203 is addressing my removal of his other comment. Anyone interest can look into the history. I removed it as it was nothing but an attack on other editors, mixed with a largely incomprehensible complaint about a wording in the article. It took me several minutes to find out what he was referring to (if I am right) and after having found out I can only say, that 203 is even more mistaken on the Jesus myth. 203, "a small minority" is a gross overstatement in this case. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The statistics that I have seen show that the vast majority of people (at least in the USA) who self-identify as "Messianic Jews" are not of ethnically Jewish descent (although there are a large number of people who are ethnically Jewish and conform to some flavor of Christianity that identifies under a different monicker). I'll see if I can find the study, but it has been a few years since I have read it. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 19:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Caruso: "The vast majority of people who self-identify as 'Messianic Jews' are not of ethnically Jewish descent." Can you cite a reference? The statistic needs to be added to the article. By the way, while Messianic Judaism isnt so "notable" for Judaism, it is very notable for Christianity. After Christianity demonized and persecuted Judaism for two thousand years, for modern Christians to find Jesus's own Judaism appealing is remarkable. --Haldrik 22:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Need to get something off your chest there Haldrik? :/ Homestarmy 01:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm .. what are you getting at? Anyway. Seems to me if people believe in Jesus, it makes sense if they believe what Jesus believed. Therefore, the archeology of Israel isnt just an academic curiosity, but an investigation of Jesus's own Jewishness, which can be relevant for over a billion humans alive today. It's a cool aspect of the study. --Haldrik 02:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Jesus' Judaism is, so Christians do believe (and they must, otherwise they would cease to be Christians), Christianity (while always taking into account that Jesus was a Jew under the Mosaic Law) - various elements might have been deemphasized because of anti-jewish polemics, but I don't think there can be "archeological findings" that can change that general perception. Judaism, unfortunately, is a very ambiguous term. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"Jesus' Judaism is, so Christians do believe (and they must, otherwise they would cease to be Christians), Christianity." RATHER: Judaism is a "people". One people among many. Jews (including Jesus) do NOT believe people need to become a Jew in order to have a relationship with God. Jews simply have a unique relationship with God. Other nations have their own unique relationships with God. Converting to Judaism is more like changing citizenships (or more accurately marrying into another tribe). Christians dont need to become Jews in order to recognize that God intends Jews to serve the world in a special way. Christians CAN believe Jesus is truly Judaic, without feeling any need to become Jews themselves. --Haldrik 20:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think part of the confusion stems from the Who is a Jew? debate. Some people are convinced that anyone who is Jewish is an Ethnic Jew, and some people are convinced that only semetic middle easterners are Ethnic Jews. Obviously, the most narrow definition of an Ethnic Jew would exclude most US Messianic Jews, but wikipedia cannot decide who is or isn't an Ethnic Jew. --Andrew c 02:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried to incorporate some of these concerns about who exactly is a "Messianic Jew" in the article, as neutrally as possible. 203: "Most Messianic 'Jews' are not ethnicly Jews. Only a minority are. Can someone fix this article to reflect that." Have a look. --Haldrik 02:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is the reference for such a claim? And why is it on topic here, the article on Jesus? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard the claim that "only semetic middle easterners are Ethnic Jews" and while I o not oubt that of the 6+ billion people on earth there my be hunreds who hold this blief, it is not opne held by Jews and most scholars of Judaism (historian, anthropologists, take your pick). Jws are a group of people and like (almost?) all groups of people self-defining. There have been some divisions among Jews as to how to define and regulat their borders. The best historical account is Shaye Cohen´s book (just look it up on Amazon), covering the Hellenistic/Rabbinic period. Boyaran´s book on St. Paul is also an excellent study of Jewish self definition in the Rabbinic period as Jews came to distinguish themselves from Christians. As for today, well, thee are a host of legitimate organizations representing major wings/movements/factions of Jews and almost all to my knowledge agree on who is a Jew. The importance of the idea of "ethnic Jew" stems from the fact that Judaism is non-dogmatic and one´s Jewishness does not depend on the level of one´s religious observance. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I think such claims are related to the theory that the Chazars make up a large chunk of today's Jews. This is particular popular in anti-Israel circles as it allows them to portray Israeli Jews as intruders with no relation to the land.

As for the recent edits to this article:

We still have no reference for the claim that most Messianic Jews are not ethnic Jews!
Nonetheless that statement is voiced as fact not once but twice in one section.
Even if true, it bears no relevance to the sentences it is included in, ...
... nor to the topic of the whole article. Remember the article is called "Jesus" - not "Messianic Jews".

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Overall, now that I think about it, there is no way to verify the ethnic population of Messianic Judaism without some sort of large survey (which I have yet to see), so any claims towards any numbers of membership would also be equally as unverifiable. Additionally, this title is a self-identification. As a bit of anecdotal evidence to illustrate, as a former "Messianic Jew" myself, I've been to several congregations whose members have self-identified as adherents to "Messianic Judaism" to find that the majority of their membership, although they each personally claimed the title, were not even remotely Jewish by ethnicity. Unless we can find some sort of reliable, verifiable survey, we need to be careful with what we mention in this or any other articles. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 15:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed Haldrik's unsourced, POV, OR additions. Not only do many Jews find the term "ethnic Jew" innacurate or even offensive (see Who is a Jew?), the claims in his addition have no historical basis--at least none cited in this article. Thus, I have reverted the section to its previous version until we can agree a new version that is properly sourced and NPOV. —Aiden 15:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

In an article about Jesus, views of about him are on topic, including the various views of Messianic Jews.

As for Steve's observation, I do not know whether the adherence to Messianic Judaism already makes them Messianic Jews according to the MJ's counting or whether they would have to be counted, to use NT terms, as Gentile Christians, Godfearing or Proselytes. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I supplied the text for the Messianic Jewish section as a proposal for the article. As soon as I have time, I'll try hunt down some scholarly or at least journalistic citations. The additions are "unsourced", as said, but they arent POV nor OR (and I'm slightly annoyed these latter labels were gratuitously slapped on; it comes across as a personal attack). Feel free to suggest changes to the proposed text above. And especially add citations if you have them handy. When everybody is reasonably satisfied with the statements and their documentation, it can be added to the article.

Regarding background: One of my dad's friends is a Messianic Jew (not Jews for Jews), who is an "ethnic" Jew. He would be considered a "halakhic" Jew, except he definitely believes in Christian theology, which dissociates him from the Jewish people. So in this sense, he's not a halakhic Jew, but he still is Jewish culturally. He mentioned some other members who have a Jewish father, but not mother, and these are also "ethnic" Jews, in that they do maintain a Jewish identity, and in other contexts would be understood as full Jews by Reform, but they are not "halakhic" Jews by an Orthodox criterion. There are also (many) members in his synagogue who are not Jews in any sense.

I agree with some of the other commentators that the distinction between Jews and non-Jews is very important when discussing "Messianic Jews". (Interestingly, apparently unique to his Messianic synagogue, it has a partnership with a nearby Conservative Jewish Synagogue who invites the Messianic Jewish synagogue to a co-religious service once a month, no doubt to help the Messianic Jews maintain their ties to the Jewish community. Apparently this is an extention of the concept of Bne Noakh.)

Regarding the text for the article, I'm not familiar with Messianic Jewish organizations, but I'm very familiar with debates about Jesus's relation to Judaism, and by extention whether Christian Jews are Jews or not. I feel the text is a fair assessment of the current consensus between the Jewish community and the Messianic Jewish community, but it needs sources to document certain statements. While I feel, it is necessary to distinguish between Jewish and non-Jewish Messianic Jews, I'm not sure how much text-space can be dedicated to explaining the differences, since this article is about their beliefs about Jesus and not about them themselves. Peace. --Haldrik 20:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources for article

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/byg/pdf/J4J_CMSGW16.pdf - This article from Jews for Judaism is polemic but can be filtered for reasonable facts.

Amazing to me, it seems unable to claim the majority of Jews for Jesus are non-Jews (despite an interest in making such a claim). It seems resigned to claim that only "many" (not "most") of Messianic Jewish communities are non-Jews: "Jews for Jesus and similar groups claim to be Jews who have come to believe in Jesus. Actually, many members of groups like Jews for Jesus and even their leadership are gentiles. They are not and have never been Jews." This statement makes me doubt the non-Jews really are the majority, so I'm removing this claim from the proposed text, unless I come across documentation stating otherwise.
Happily the article also says the following: "That Jesus and his followers were Jews does not confer Jewish legitimacy to their movement."
I feel the following is a fair statement regarding the difference between views of Jesus that are and are not Jewish. "As soon as the followers of Jesus changed the Jewish concept of Messiah from a human redeemer who leads the world to a utopian age into a divine saviour who dies to atone for sin, they began transforming into a different religion."

--Haldrik 21:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

An interesting point of view. Is it yours, or do you have a verifiable source? If you have a verifiable source it belongs somewhere - not here, but in the article on Christianity and Judaism, and perhaps on the Cultural and Historical context of Jesus. For what it is worth, I have a verifiable source, Boyarin in A Radical Jew, who suggests that when paul argued that Jewish Christians (like non-Jewish Christians) no longer had to observe the law was the beginning of the break and rise of a new religion. Of course Boyarin´s view is just one view and as such no better than yours. The point is, we can´t put your view in the encyclopedia. We need to know it comes from a verifiable source. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Slrub: "Is it yours, or do you have a verifiable source?" I'm quoting the article from Jews for Judaism (a group of Orthodox, Reform, etc. Jews). The link to the article is above.--Haldrik 22:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I am so blind, and thank you for the gentle point. Alas, I am at the world´s slowest internet connection and cannot open up the link. Personally I am old-fashioned and prefer books and articles as sources but this link certainly is a valid source, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Like Boyarin, many Judaic scholars hold that Paul (not Jesus) founded Christianity, precisely because of Paul's break from Torah/halakha. Paul isnt relevant here. However, the point that Jesus himself didnt believe in an anti-Torah ideology is relevant. --Haldrik 22:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The article doesnt go into depth about the historical Jesus. Another book that Jews for Judaism published (Beth Moshe, Judaism's Truth Answers the Missionaries, ISBN 0-8197-0515-2) says this:

"PRO-JUDAISM. Th[is] book's presentation is pro-Judaism, and affirmation of the truth of Judaism for Jews. It is not intended to prove Christianity wrong but rather Judaism right. The confirmation of the Judaism's enduring validity as of God will be shown through the pages of the Hebrew Bible - as well as Christianity's New Testament." (p. 1)

"JESUS SAID JUDAISM IS GOOD. While Paul advanced separation from Judaism, Jesus announced Judaism's greatness. .. Jesus was a practicing, believing Jew who taught faithfulness to his religion's Torah. He affirmed it was the way to God and eternal life. He and his family observed the Jewish customs, holidays, and Saturday Sabbath in synagogue. Jesus said personal salvation is obtained in Judaism. Christianity has announced a new way to salvation, through belief in Jesus' vicarious atonement for sins and resurrection from death. But. This development does not invalidate Jesus' own words in Christianity's own Book." (p. 4)

"JESUS THE JEW - INTRODUCTION. It isn't Jews who should see Jesus as the Christ of Christianity, but Christians who should be made aware of his Jewishness! That Jesus was a devoted Jew is openly narrated over and over again in the New Testament. Jesus' deep fidelity to Judaism's God, belief in the Hebrew Scriptures, and observance of the Jewish religion are abundantly described. As a dedicated Jewish man, [Jesus] taught Jews, and Jews exclusively, to do God's will, which he found in the Torah. What he expounded to the multitudes came from his Jewish heritage. He was a religious person, within the mainstream of Judaism, who understood the Torah's eternal nature and value. Jesus was born a Jew, spoke as a Jew, lived as a Jew, prayed as a Jew, and died still a devout Jew. He never discarded or debased Judaism. Jesus was not an apostate, nor did he teach others to leave Judaism. So, if being Jewish was good enough for Jesus, why shouldn't all Jews feel the same!" (p. 9)

Historically speaking, the above statement made by a member of Jews for Judaism is accurate. --Haldrik 22:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)