Talk:Jewish Christianity/Archive 1

Question

Whether or not there should be such a term as "Jewish Christians" is not the point here. The only point is that the term currently exists. Since it does, is this an adequate discussion of it? Rlquall 2057 14 Jul 2004 UTC

There is material at Nazarene that should be adapted to fit in this entry— without suppressing it at that one, needless to add. Wetman 18:17, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Don't merge with Messianic Judaism

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)

Unfortunate mixup

Currently this article covers two rather unrelated subjects. I'd prefer to split off the part relating to Early Christianity but don't know which would be the most common English name. In German, "Judenchristen" quite unambigously refers to Early Christianity. --Pjacobi July 8, 2005 17:43 (UTC)

Don't merge with Judeo-Christian

I am not happy with the suggestion to merge this article with Judeo-Christian. The two concepts are not closely related. Jewish Christians is about people who define themselves as Christians who are ethnically Jewish. Judeo-Christian is about a set of moral and social beliefs, mooted by their followers to be rooted in the Old Testament and therefore in the Jewish and Christian traditions. There are Jews and Christians who hold to "Judeo-Christian" views as well as followers of both religions who disagree; there are also some who subscribe to neither faith who nevertheless promote "Judeo-Christian" ideals. Jewish Christians, however, are a faith community, not a set of beliefs. David Cannon 12:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that these should remain distinct articles, largely for the reasons given by David Cannon. They're related enough to maybe link to each other, but not nearly close enough to combine into the same article. Wesley 15:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed per both authors above. These are two completely different topics deserving their own pages. Let's not get merge happy.--Son of More 03:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The suggestion is Madness

The 'Judeo-Christian' tradition is another way of saying the 'western cultural' tradition. This is used because it is considered less antisemitic than saying something like 'the Christian cultural tradition' which is often thought to devalue the role of the Hebrew Bible and Jewish culture on western civilisation.

On the other hand, "Jewish Christians" is often used by academics in discussing early Church history. The story goes that early proto-Christians (also sometimes called Nazarenes) were in fact a very small sect among many that were far more important e.g. Essenes, Sadducees, Pharisees, Qumran sect, Zealots, etc etc. Later on after the Jewish revolt and the Roman sacking of the temple, all these sects came together into the two glorious movements Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism.

Well thats the story at least...

Removed notice

I hope I don't offend whoever put the notice there but I have removed it as the person who put it there was either in a massive rush (and won't mind us removing it) or really is not qualified to mod this area (and so won't mind us removing it).

It really is a bit of a tweedle-dum error which could have been picked up with a dictionary. No one has written in favour of merging it and never will because it really does not make any sense from any perspective to do so.

Anyway the notice looked a bit like this:

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Judeo-Christian. (Discuss)

Splitting Artice

The other debate was about whether to split the modern from the ancient, i.e, the early proto-Christians from modern believers in Christianity from a Jewish ethnicity. That could be done to the extent that you can find a term for each (or have a disambiguation aid). In general that would be a good idea, although there may be good arguments against it navigationally. And the principle that one long article is better than two stubs.

(Must remember to sig...) Zeth 16:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Both meanings will be given below, from a Christian context.

Am I the only one who finds this a violation of the Wikipedia NPOV policy?

--unsigned

Well yes and no

It is I suppose another reason to split the modern from the ancient, see my comment above. On the other hand, the whole article is only meaningful within a Christian context. From a Jewish perspective you cannot be a 'Jewish Christian, - you are either a Gentile and thus not Jewish, or you are a true Jew and thus not Christian, or you are a Jew and you have apostacised so are no longer a true Jew.

However if you want, the line could just read "Both meanings will be given below.", without any qualifier.

Zeth 19:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC) Zeth

Incorrect, one is a Jew irregardless of ones religion. In addition, the whole world cannot be divided into Christians and Jews, nor Gentiles and Jews, these are not neutral perspectives. Yes, there are two meanings: Early Jewish Christians (as opposed to Pauline Christianity) and modern Jewish Christians, both can be defined from a neutral perspective.

DISPUTED

The article contains the following disputed statement:

"Much of the early controversy in the Church was over the issue of whether Gentiles could enter the Church directly or ought to first convert to Judaism."

The primary controversy in the early Church was circumcision, not conversion to Judaism. See Acts 15, Galatians 2, Council of Jerusalem. Circumcision is mentioned many times in the New Testament, conversion to Judaism is never mentioned. "Conversion to Judaism" is original research which is prohibited on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:No original research

--unsigned

well...

I suppose some of what you say techically true to an extent, except that it is hardly original (any text on the subject between 1500-1970 would probably echo the article's words).

Cite references if you think the viewpoint is important. Without references it is original research. I gave my reference: the New Testament which mentions circumcision many times but never mentions conversion to Judaism.

Technically speaking around 30-60 AD/BCE there was no monolithic religion of 'Judaism', no such thing as a 'church' or of 'Christianity', let alone a 'New Testament', all of which is at least a hundred years away.

Zeth 19:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC) Zeth

Yes, so conversion to Judaism is also an anachronism. There was such a thing as Christianity, though according to the NT it was called the Way or Nazarenes first: these were followers of Jesus, they were Jews, Proselytes and Gentiles and some other groups like Samaritan. The Pauline Epistles date to the first century, they mention circumcision many times but never mention conversion to Judaism. Acts of the Apostles dates from the second century, again circumcision mentioned many times, conversion to Judaism never mentioned. True, these documents are later than 30-60, but they are a heck of a lot more contemporary than 1500+ which you site above for the theory of "conversion to Judaism".

My suggestion is that the sentence be modified as such:

According to the Pauline Epistles of the 1st century and Acts of the Apostles of the 2nd, much of the early controversy was over the issue of whether new converts must be circumcised before they could join. The Council of Jerusalem, Acts 15 and Galatians 2, determined that circumcision was not required of new converts, only adherence to a minimal set of the Law of Moses later known as the Noahide Laws.

According to <<insert reference here>> much of the early controversy in the Church was over the issue of whether Gentiles could enter the Church directly or ought to first convert to Judaism.

Wikipedia:Cite sources "Wikipedia articles should cite their sources, preferably reliable sources."

One other point: circumcision is relevant to the early Jewish Christians because Paul in Galatians 2:7-9 called them the "circumcised":

"On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised." NRSV

Perhaps the article should cite the NT debates regarding circumcision, as you've listed, but then add that because circumcision was generally the sign of becoming a Jew, this has been widely interpreted as a debate about whether a Gentile had to become a Jew before becoming a Christian, or even in tandem with becoming a Christian if they did not see a sharp distinction between Judaism and Christianity; in the first century that's entirely plausible. Wesley 05:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The article should start with the facts. Then move to interpretations, hopefully with citations. Who was the first to interpret circumcision as conversion to Judaism? I think what happened first is that it was interpreted as Judaizing, i.e. taking on Jewish customs, such as observing the Sabbath and the Quartodeciman. It might be worthwhile to note that some Christians today, such as the Ethiopian Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox still practice circumcision yet don't consider it conversion to Judaism nor do they consider themselves to be Jews or Jewish Christians. Muslims practice circumcision yet don't consider it conversion to Judaism or Christianity.

(Former) Jews in Orthodox Christianity

What reason for statements like "They are (mostly) members of Protestant and Catholic congregations" and not mentioning (former) Jews in Orthodox Christianity. Only mentioned is example of Israel ("In Israel, there is a growing number of Orthodox Christians who are of Jewish descent and conduct their worship mostly in Hebrew.") but it unfortunately has no further links. But there are (tens of) thousands of Jews converted (or grown) in Orthodox Christianity, for instance in Russia, where they retain no distinctions from other Orthodox Christians. For example I know personally several priests of Jewish descent and many laymen. Koryakov Yuri 12:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Then would you like to name some notable ones? There is also a List of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians where you would be most welcome to add any that are well-known. (There are already a few ethnically Jewish Russian Orthodox believers listed there, such as Alexander Men and Boris Berezovsky). David Cannon 01:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

<<The boundary between the two movements is blurred, but the differences between the two movements are such that it is not fair to treat them as one, any more than one would treat Baptists and Methodists as a single entity, for example.>> Indeed, I grew up treating Baptists and Methodists as a single entity called Non-conformists. I could never tell the difference. They sing the same hymns and share many of the lay preachers who say the same thing.

Section: Contemporary Jewish Christians

The section Contemporary Jewish Christians is completely lacking any sources whatsoever. There also seems to be a sort of conversational tone going on in there, not exactly fit for an encyclopedic resource. Last but not least, are there a lot of unnecessary quotation marks in this area or is it just me?

Examples:

• "Jewish Christians"
• "mainstream"
• "Jews for Jesus"
• "Messianic Judaism"

Why not just keep the links wikified and let folks decide for themselves? To insert a lot of punctuation like that seems to undermine the legibility and/or the intent of the author. Your thoughts?--Son of More 03:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Splitting article - opinions please

This article covers two quite distinct issues: the historic 'Jewish Christians' (on whom there is some consensus of definition) and the modern use of the term (where there is less consensus). I would propose splitting it into two articles (with cross-references and disambiguation, of course): Jewish Christians (historical) and Jewish Christians (contemporary). Can readers give their opinion here please?Smerus 11:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support. The original Ebionites article had the same problem. It was separated into historical and modern Ebionites with brief cross-references. The historical Ebionites article was then taken all the way to FA. The same thing needs to be done with the Nazarene (sect) article. Ovadyah 19:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Paul not in Antioch after the blow-up with Peter?

Despite what L. Michael White claims in his book, Incident at Antioch, Paul did pay a visit to Antioch years after the confrontation with Peter. See Acts 18:22-23, where we are told he spent some time there, on his way back to Jerusalem from his 2nd missionary journey. White also is cited, in related articles, claiming that Barnabas sided with Peter in the dispute, and using Paul's version of events to support this interpretation. Gal 2:13 simply states that Barnabas "dissembled' along with Peter and the other Jews, who had insisted on separation between Jews and Gentiles, not unlike what the Pharisees (many of whom had become believers) taught. Paul, a former Pharisee, was not fooled by this, but adhered to the decision of the council. I realize that many modern scholars consider 2 Peter to be late, and not the work of the Apostle, but let's assume for argument's sake that it is Peter's work. 2 Pet 3:15 shows Peter recommending Paul's letters along with Scripture. Clement of Rome, who probably knew both apostles, cites Peter and Paul in the same letter. When the primary sources are taken fully into account, one could conclude that White exaggerates the incident into a 'rift', and the primary sources lend credence to Paul's version of events, rather than White's modern interpretation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gzvodar (talk • contribs)

Nasrani and Knanaya

Knanaya is just a small sect of syrian christians in Kerala. They are just like any other syrian christians. The only speciality is their endogamy practice and some rituals during the wedding. But that does not mean that they have more jewishness than other syrian christians.

this is the worst opening paragraph of any article on the internet

it really needs a lot of help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.117.107 (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)