Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

Hebrew Christianity is not the same as Messianic Judaism. Hebrew Christianity is an old term for a congregational movement of Jews who believe in Jesus. Hebrew Christianity differs from Messianic Judaism in that it was more evangelistic and did not adopt Jewish practice.

I disagree completely. The term "Hebrew Christian" refers to a Christian exhibiting properties or behaviours that, while appearing to be authentically Jewish, are not. Some examples include but are not limited to:

• Introducing the name or mention of Jesus in any form to Jewish blessings.
• Adding traditionally Christian imagery to Jewish rituals.
• Renaming Christian rituals with Hebrew titles (such as calling a baptism a Mikvah).

Terming the article "Messianic Judiasm" is a misnomer because it does not discuss the concept of a Messiah within Judaism. It discusses Hebrew Christianity. yonkeltron 01:38, 22 February 2006 (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.

There is a real easy way to find out whether someone is practicing "Messianic Judaism" or "Hebrew Christianity"--invite a gentile Christian to attend a worship service. If he feels fairly at home, it's "Hebrew Christian". If he feels like it's foreign, it's Messianic Jewish.

For a list of some differences between Messianic Jewish and Christian practices--including Hebrew Christian, see these pages on my website www.MessianicWorship.com: Is a Congregation Messianic? (as opposed to either a "Messianic wannnabe" group or a "pseudo-messianic" group, i.e., a Protestant congregation that tries to pass itself off as "Messianic"), and FAQ-Messianics and Christians

There's another thing no one is considering: What about us Messianic gentiles? I am Messianic but I am not ethnically Jewish and I have not gone through a conversion to Judaism. I attend both a Protestant church and a Messianic synagogue and they are quite different, even though both believe Jesus is the Messiah, died to pay for men's sins, rose from the dead, etc.

RickReinckens 07:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you go from low church to high, or high church to Charismatic, you get the same effect. An old-line Presbyterian who knew Hebrew might actually do okay in an Artscroll-derived service. As I've stated before, it should be called a Judaism if it doesn't vary from what is known as Judaism much more than the various known Judaisms vary from each other.

I'm GPoMJ too, and I'm still very much lacking a decent noun. "Grafted One?" Maybe. But some have made a great deal of our presense.

Please, please, PLEASE don't set yourself up as the Keeper of All Things Messianic. That's my title. Get another. :D

NathanZook 04:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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. So, there has been a two-millenia pincers movement in force to keep Jewish people from freely deciding for themselves that Yahshua (Jesus) is and was the Jewish Messiah, either by forbidding this conclusion by force or by the with-holding of relevant information, or by stripping the descendants of Abraham who declare for Jesus the Messiah of their 'Jewishness'. Their historic dilemma has been: "How do we retain both the Jewish Messiah, and our Jewish-ness?" 129.24.93.219 23:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Anon, what in god's name are you talking about?- "Hebrew Christians' have been told, quite forcefully, for almost two thousand years, that they can NOT be Jewish", ignoring the fact that christians were considered a jewish sect for the first few centuries, this whole deal about Messianic Judaism and Hebrew christians has only been around since the victorians, you make it sound like there is a whole glorious history of Jews for Jesus which includes much discrimination. I would hate to burst your bubble.- Mosh Constantine

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)

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)

Yea your right anon, times are changing, us Jews should accept that theer is no place for Jews who are "not for Jesus" in today's world. Give me a break douche.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't at all anon when I wrote that, and I stand by what I wrote. What I want to know is how in the world what I wrote has to do with what you have written? And upon what basis do you refer to me with such a disparaging term? NathanZook 04:41, 11 January 2006 (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 Declaration 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)

Great. Quote the traitor Josephus to Jews. I really appreciate your technical edits, but your edits (of 3/12/05) seem to swing wide of NPOV, and this comment is just...weird. NathanZook 01:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Josephus is a lousy source on this. It is pretty much universally agreed by scholars that the part about "He was the Messiah", appeared after death, etc., is a later addition by Christians. Keep in mind that, unlike the Bible, we do not have a large number of ancient copies of Josephus made within a few hundred years after the original was written so that we can compare copies and determine what was a later addition. RickReinckens 07:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Request to persons not in the movement

It is plain from some of your edits and comments that many of you have had little or no contact with our leaders. I understand that many of you consider what we do to be illegitemate. I feel the same way about many others, perhaps some of you. But your non-npov edits do nothing to aid your cause. While I don't accept responsibility for other's edits, I base mine on first-hand observation. Please leave your polemics off the main page.

All religous movements have their fringe elements and evolve over time. This movement is quite young. You could argue that the formation of the UMJC in the mid 80's represented the formal inception of Messianic Judaism as separate from Hebrew Christianity. There is still a tremendous debate about what should be called Messianic Judaism. When I find a link refering to itself as "Messianic Jewish" in some way, I immediately check to see if they consider themselves to be part of Judaism, and their view of Torah. If their answers aren't "yes" and "high", then I consider them to be Hebrew Christian and confused. Aren't we to give others the benefit of the doubt? NathanZook 23:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why someone insists on deleting my comments when you make statements such as this.

a) I have had plenty of contacts with some of your highest leaders. I can tell you that they present a lot of "information" as factual, however they do not allow any open debate. If someone does try to debate them, that person is quickly ridiculed, and excommunicated. Also, members of the cult are told that that person is "negative" and "evil".

b) Polemics - I have never seen more Polemics against rabbis and Judaism, than inside a Messianic group.

c) Judaism does not consider Messianicism a part of them. However, Messianics are considered by Christians and Jews alike to be part of Christianity. This can be evidenced by the large funding of Messianicism by Organized Christianity (to the tune of $100s of millions), and by the fact that Pastors are called to speak in Messianic congregations, and vice versa.

d) There is hardly any group today that can truly be called "Messianic". In fact, Messiah is just a work used instead of "Christ", to make Jews feel more comfortable in their choice to convert to Christianity. The majority of Messianics worship Jesus as God, not Messiah. This, by definition, IS CHRISTIANITY, regardless of how you name it otherwise.

e.g. Presbytarians, Baptists, etc. doesn't have Christian in their name, but they are Christians nonetheless because they worship Christ. I can find you written documentation from inside of Messianic organizations, showing that they chose to use to the word Messiah instead of the word Christ. Therefore, they are fundamentally the same as Hebrew Christian. OpenInfo 15:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Intermarriage

This section was originally done by an IP address NathanZook

I think this article overlooked the fact that Messianic "Judaism" is used as a method of resolving intermarriage conflicts where one spouse is Jewish (usually a member of the Reform movement), and the other spouse is Christian (church-going).

This allows the church-going spouse to attend a congregation that is acceptable to them, since Messianic worship usually involves singing songs about Jesus.

It also allows the Reform Jewish spouse to attend a congregation that has the word "Jewish" in it's name, therefore making them feel its acceptable, even though they know its wrong.

If people have no more connection to their faith than to marry outside it, then they don't have any faith at all. That can change as they grow up, however, (especially if they have kids) and some have suggested that Messianic Jewish congregations could be ideal for such couples. Frankly, no congregation in the world is going to deal with the fundamental problem: "How can two walk together unless they agree?" They are going to be a problem for whatever congregation they attend. NathanZook 01:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

A couple of important edits

Nice anonymous edit there, Openinfo. Please read wiki policies.

There is no Messianic "Judaism" close to Orthodox Judaism. It is merely a simulation of Judaism (as is the whole Messianic movement). The entire intent of this movement was created to deceive Jews into converting to Christianity.

Yep, and we control all of the newspapers, and the banks, and the army.

Actually, there is a group planning this thing. It is called the MJAA (Messianic "jewish" Alliance of America), and they are funded in excess of $150 million a year by Baptist organizations, in addition to billions of dollars in funding by private and other donations, within the Christian community and their own members. OpenInfo 20:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If you have studied the movement at all, you would know that there is no person or group of people planning this thing. If it were, we would have our act much, much more together. A number of late twentieth-century Jews became convinced that the Nazarene is the Messiah. As they examined scripture, however, they could find no warrant for the abrogation of Torah. These men observe Torah and Halacha, some so extremely that other Jews are intimidated. You can call them what you want. They call themselves Messianic Jews, and their religion Messianic Judaism. I know full well that Christianity has often defined itself as "not Judaism", and Judaism as "not Christianity" for almost two thousand years. I disagree. NathanZook 00:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

"Messiah" = "Yeshua" = Jesus = Christ

Messianic = Jesus worship = Christianity

Christianic Judaism??? It's an oxymoron.

Actually, no. "Christ" derives from the Greek Kristos. Messiah doesn't wear a toga, and never did. That's why I don't call myself a Christian. My beliefs are no longer derived from a goyish view of Messiah. NathanZook 00:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It's good to hear that you no longer believe in Jesus !!! (As you are saying, you now have a Jewish view of Messiah, which is that he has not arrived yet).

No , that's the Rabbinic Judaic view of Yeshua/Jesus, not necessarily the Jewish view of him.

Christian "Passover"

read the Messianic Haggadah. It is a holiday to celebrate and talk about Jesus. It is unrelated to the Jewish holiday of Pesach.

Which one? I know one of the guys that did one of those about twenty years ago. He's now embarassed by it. (He's used the Carlibacher Haggadah the last three years.) Of course, at the time, he was Hebrew Christian. NathanZook 01:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Article nominated to be checked for its neutrality (because of edits by people INSIDE of this movement)

I am the one who nominated this article to be reviewed for its neutrality. This was mostly due to edits posted by NathanZook, who claim to have a NPOV, when in fact he is editing this article to remove factual information that disagrees with his own poin of view.OpenInfo 20:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

QUOTE FROM NathanZook: "While I don't accept responsibility for other's edits, I base mine on first-hand observation."

Sorry to say, but this actually violates Wikipedia's "No Original Research" policy. The editors of this page should be reviewing the article and removing any of these "first-hand observations". Instead, some of the research can be used, based on organizations that do research and study these missionary groups.

Wikipedia was expressly set up to defy the oracular model. If you don't understand what that means, then you are going to be quite frustrated here. Yes, the Southern Bapist messianic whatsit is set up as a missonary group. Their charter states that their purpose is, AIR, "To promote the Baptist Faith and Message", so they are Baptists. And they have been critcized by UMJC leaders for doing so. 205.238.178.124 04:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Nobody mentioned baptists in this section, however since you are talking about Baptists and the UMJC leaders, the UMJC was CREATED by Baptist and Presbytarian evangelists. If UMJC leaders are criticizing Baptists, then they only criticize themselves. OpenInfo 14:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

There are no polemics involved on my end. All posts I have made were based on external research, and reinforced by contact made with leaders in high ranking within the MJAA.

Keep in mind, that I am not a member of any Jewish group, nor am I a member of any Messianic group, nor do I have anything to do with the MJAA. However, I have had extensive dealings with leadership in both groups(Reform Jewish, Conservative Jewish, and Orthodox Jewish, as well as within the "Messianic" groups). Therefore, I am posting from a NPOV, as well as with an informed POV. OpenInfo 20:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The closest one can say that these congregations get to "acting Jewish" would be Reform Judaism. Even then, with all the talk about Jesus, one cannot say they are Jewish at all.OpenInfo 20:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

So what exactly ARE your relgious views? You certainly have taken the OJ pov wrt the movement. And why is the content of this article so important to you?

Interesting that you ask for a neutrality check & then do the work yourself. Particularly interesting since you insist on factually inaccurate statements regarding our beliefs.

Did you ever ask if the MJAA considers itself to be a part of Judaism? In any event, our primary debate revolves around the Torah pole, which is UMJC. We broke off from the MJAA because it was not moving sufficiently towards Judaism.

As for "no polemics", how about the following: ("passover" in this religion is a celebration of Jesus. This is completely unrelated to the Jewish Pesach.) I call it a polemic because it is 1) counterfactual and 2) provocative.

NathanZook 02:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)