Talk:Jewish Christianity/Archive 2

Confusing Sentence

This sentence:

The major division prior to that time was between Hellenistic and non-Hellenistic Jews or Koine Greek[9] Acts does not use the term "Jewish Christians", rather those led by James the Just, Simon Peter, and John the Apostle, the "Pillars of the Church", were called followers of "The Way".[10]

is probably not saying what it was meant to say. I'm not certain enough of its intended meaning to fix it, however. Please help. Jason Fruit (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

Yes, is mine any better? - 12:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Non sourced assertions

Ret. Prof., you have been deleting unsourced assertions. Wouldn't it be better to add a citation needed tag instead? The statements might be true and they are more likely to be lost forever if you just delete them. With a citation needed tag someone might come up with a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmeijeri (talk • contribs) 17:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course you are right. If you can find a good citation please feel free to restore material. The material I deleted was "suspect". Also please note the "need additional citations" tag has been there since 2007. My goal is to fix article and to remove the tag Ret.Prof (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Depicting Legends as Sources

Much of this material, particularly that applying to adventures of saints, is not historically sound. It has been passed on as religious legend and may be taken as factual by churches, but that is not acceptable for true scholarship. The ambiguity about these historical times and the gaps in our knowledge need to be acknowledged, and the only documents that are relevant are those not obviously written by medeival Christian propogandists. 76.113.64.124 (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

There is little about religious historiology, Christian or otherwise, which is unambiguously factual. If you could list some specific criticisms, they could be dealt with one at a time. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Lets start with the assumption that Christians believe their own theology, and that Jesus rose from the tomb, and that the 11 disciples took over the movement after Jesus went to heaven. James became the congregational leader (according to tradition) after the congregation was scattered, not immediately upon Jesus' death. --DeknMike (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I tagged the appropriate parts of history with the religious primary template... I agree, that section really needs an academic historical reference. Zad68 (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

archived tangential Messianic Judaism section

Main article: Messianic Judaism

During the first years of the 20th Century, some Jews who had converted to Christianity began distancing themselves from Christian forms of worship, and began to use the term "Messianic". In the 1940s and 50s, missionaries in Israel adopted the term meshichyim ("Messianics") to counter negative connotations of the word nozrim ("Christians"). The rise of Messianic Judaism was, in many ways, a logical outcome of the ideology and rhetoric of the movement to evangelize the Jews as well as its early sponsorship of various forms of Hebrew Christian expressions. The missions have promoted the idea that conversion to Christianity was acceptable for Jews.

In the 1960s, in part because of the Jesus movement, Jewish groups and mainline Christians were surprised to see this rise of a vigorous movement of Jewish Christians or Christian Jews. Martin Chernoff became the President of the HCAA in 1971 (until 1975), and under his leadership the movement's position shifted radically. In June 1973, a motion was made to change the name of the HCAA to the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America (MJAA), and the name was officially changed in June 1975. According to David A. Rausch, "The name change, however, signified far more than a semantical expression — it represented an evolution in the thought processes and religious and philosophical outlook toward a more fervent expression of Jewish identity," and began to eliminate the elements of Christian worship that cannot be directly linked to their Jewish roots. --DeknMike (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

What is your point with this material? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The section at the end of the article about Jews who had converted to Christianity also struck me as being totally off-topic. I also tend to question the whole article as being somewhat original research and a fringe view, although with some good information. I'm not sure a distinct article for "Jewish Christians" is needed, rather good NPOV coverage of the history of the relationship of Judaism and early Christianity.Borock (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite needed for lead

This article is focused on first century Jewish believers, and ignores Jewish believers throughout history, especially the effect of Jewish Christians, Hebrew Christians and Messianic Jews in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. For example, the first sentence references the Judaizers in the original congregation in Jerusalem. However, that congregation likely was not call Christian, being a Hellenistic term originating in Antioch. --DeknMike (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been reading your comment and you have a good point. Should this article title be "Early Jewish Christians"? - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Or, the missing material could just be added. There's nothing stopping anyone from doing it, subject of course to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand "early Jewish Christians" are a distinct group, regardless if that is the best name to call them. I'm not sure if an article on every person in the last 2000 years who is in some sense both Jewish and Christian is a good idea. Borock (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

POVFORK of this article being created

As this article notes, "Hebrew Christian" is another term for "Jewish Christian". Since 2006 the page Hebrew Christian has been a redirect to this article. In December, DeknMike (talk · contribs) decided to turn the Hebrew Christian article into a WP:POVFORK of Messianic Judaism - in fact, copying significant amounts of text verbatim from the Messianic Judaism article. A discussion was held regarding what should be done about this at Talk:Messianic Judaism/Archive 20#Newly updated Wikipedia article "Hebrew_Christian", and the consensus was to restore the redirect. However, since then DeknMike has reverted 3 different editors, re-creating the WP:POVFORK. He has not actually explained why the material is not already or could not be covered in the Messianic Judaism or Jewish Christian articles. Is there a consensus that the "Hebrew Christian" article should be turned into a standalone article?

• Oppose, for the reasons given above. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons as above but I do think an NEW article should be created with a title like "Hebrew Christians (19th Century movement)" or something like that. There was such a movement in that period and it deserves a page, but that movement was not directly related to or a continuation of the movement discussed at Jewish Christians.Zad68 (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Can someone lease explain, first, why you're holding this discussion here instead of on that article's talk page? It seems to me to be implicitly prejudicial to hold the discussion here. Well, I see that you've notified that other article, so I guess this is fine, but I still find it odd. I'm going to take a look at the several articles in question later today when I have time; when I read just Hebrew Christian as a reader with no knowledge of the subject, I don't actually see how it's a POV fork, but perhaps if I read it more closely (or if someone explains), I'll understand better. If there is, in fact, as Zad68 says, a distinct, separate movement from the 19th century that is not the same movement as Messianic Judaism, then there should be a separate article. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

We're doing the vote on this page because Jayjg did a redirect on the HC talk page, and it is no longer publicly accessible.--DeknMike (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• For - The Messianic Judaism editorial community made convincing arguments that the history of the Hebrew Christian movement did not belong on that site. However, since the Jewish Christian article deals mostly with early Christianity, I used the large body of evidence to document the rise of so-called Hebrew Christians in the 18th thru 20th century as a separate movement. However, if the community would prefer, we can rename the aforementioned article Hebrew Christian 'Movement'. --DeknMike (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

So the issue is resolved then DeknMike if you agree to create a new page and put the material on the 19th century movement there. DeknMike could you please put back the redirect on Hebrew Christian to Jewish Christians and put the material on the 19th century on a new page, problem solved. Right? Zad68 (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me; the current contents can got to Hebrew Christian Movement or something similar, and Hebrew Christian can redirect back here, with a properly worded {{redirect}} note at the top of this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose For the reasons stated above. Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

RESOLVED: Per consensus and agreement of DeknMike at the discussion here, and because DeknMike mentioned that he would be away from editing for a few days, I completed the move of the article contents and restored the original redirect. Zad68 (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Contents are now at Hebrew Christian Movement Zad68 (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The lede was incorrect in placing without sourcing four/five terms as coequivalent, which sources indicate they are not, even if Christian Jews, Hebrew Christians reasonably redirects back here. I have broken out and added [incomplete but mainstream I hope] sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Messy intro

The current intro constitutes a multitude of "definitions", that should instead be placed on a disambiguation page. The article body, in contrast, is dealing mainly with the original Aramaic speaking "Christians" (Nazarenes, the original adherents of Yeshua bar-Maryam) living in Roman Judea of antiquity. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Jewish AND Christian?

since Jesus never claimed to be anything other that a Jew, is there a form of Judaism that acknowledges Him as the Messiah, but rejects Christianity itself?--99.101.160.159 (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Christian Jews

The link to Christian Jews is unnecessary as it simply redirects here. -Stevertigo (t | c) 02:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

opinion

when one says that a person is Jewish-Christian, what does the name so over? Have seen the term has been used in several articles, concerning a person's religious beliefs.--109.232.72.49 (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Circumcision controversy

The article says, "A common interpretation of the circumcision controversy of the New Testament was that it was over the issue of whether Gentiles could enter the Church directly or ought to first convert to Judaism. However, the Halakha of Rabbinic Judaism was still under development at this time, as the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Jesus notes ... ." Whether or not the Halakha, (i.e., Jewish law) was under development or not, circumcision was not at issue.

The article also says, "In 1st century Pharisaic Judaism there was controversy over the significance of circumcision, for example between Hillel the Elder and Shammai." Hillel and Shammai agreed that male converts had to be circumcised; they disagreed on the treatment of converts who were already circumcised.

If there are no objections, I will amend accordingly. Marshall46 (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Marshall46 (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Good edit! Your assessment of the facts in the situation at hand is correct, and I suspect the original interpretation of the sources cited was somewhat off-kilter. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Conceptualization etc. (globalize)

Some issues:

1. Why is this talk page not archived? The oldest comment on this page is from just three months ago. (Created archive from history).
2. Issues with terminology and hyperbole: For example the language "totally faithful" in the lede.
3. The term "Jewish Christians" is nominally general and as such has contemporary relevance, yet this is not mentioned in the lede. The lede improperly asserts an exclusively historical and contextually Christian definition, and not a Jewish-cultural/Christian belief definition, which is given only a section below, and otherwise might be confined to particular conceptualizations like "Netzarim," "Conversos," "Marranos," "Judaizers" or "converts/apostates."

-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 18:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This article clearly has problems, including a couple noticed here years ago. So I will continue here, focusing on the lead.

I think there are problems with the editing around some of the sources. For example, I wouldn't argue with Dr McGrath's quote given in the citation, but the article text lets the one statement stand out of context, as though there were uniformity among "Jewish Christians" (just how do you identify them, exactly?), and as though there were no conflicts or issues that the first Christians were sorting out at the time. The very adherence of former Jews to all Jewish traditions, especially circumcision, produced conflicts as far away as Corinth. And see what the Apostle Paul has to say about it in 1 Cor 7! He was most outspoken against the continuation of the very practices that are being pointed out in the article as being a norm that continued. But they didn't.

Then let's take the Australian Catholic Univ source, by the unmentioned author David C Sim, who wishes to claim that the total number of Jews in the "Christian movement" (whatever that is) probably never exceeded 1000. I presume he has read Acts 2:41, where 3,000 joined the church on the day of Pentecost. More to the point, we can be sure that the Catholic Church knows the verse well, and doesn't do squishy math with the numbers or history. So, how acceptable is Sim as a WP:RS? Was he accepted because he was Catholic, or a prof at a nominally Catholic university? If his views are at odds with Catholicism (aren't they evidently so?) on what are we to base his reliability? So, what is the last paragraph of the lead, under-supported by only this one questionable source, doing there? Is it POV? Is it OR? Or something else? I'll wager it's not reliable, and unless I hear otherwise something soon, I'll remove that bit. But this is just small potatoes compared to an article that begins completely out of focus, where its principal subject area is not even clearly delineated. Would anyone else like to comment, or start fixing? Evensteven (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 20 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Reasonable debate about which title is more accurate and it has been clearly shown that reliable sources prefer the current title. Jenks24 (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Jewish Christian → Hebrew Christian – Jewish is a name of both a religious and ethnic society. Especially in this article and topic, we can not use the name Jewish before Christian. Because it creates a paradox. The word Hebrew must be used. Because in this article the word "Jewish" shows ethnicity and the word Christian shows "religion". Why to use ambiguity instead of clarity? For clarity, in this article and in every place where the Jewish ethnicity is meant we must use the word "Hebrew" or "Israelite" not the word Jew. Would a Hebrew Christian would call himself "I'm a Jewish Christian" or "I'm a Hebrew Christian"? He would emphasize that he is a convert so he would not use the name "Jew" which also implies religion other than ethnicity.  İskenderBalas^💬 20:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support - The proposed name is more accurate. I'm just wondering how much information we may have to cut out (referring to Jewish as a religion) to comply with the new page name. Meatsgains (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose User:Meatsgains is this more common in Google Books? I see the current title getting 8x the hits. Also some of Google Book "Hebrew Christian" refs refer not to general "Jewish Christians"/"Hebrew Christians" but to the 19th Century Hebrew Christian movement (look at this book cover) on a specific 19th Century Hebrew Christian movement, not general Jewish Christians. Jewish Christian is generally used of 2nd and 3rd centuries, but can be used up till 2015 also. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. To see "Jewish" and "Christian" as mutually exclusive terms is an anachronism, as is the idea of a purely "ethnic" Jew. The first Christians were Jews and considered themselves Jewish in every way. The separation of the church and synagogue was a gradual thing, not an immediate break. The first Christians did not see themselves as converting out of Judaism, but merely as a part of it; in fact during the very early days they required gentile believers to convert into Judaism and observe Judaic customs. The council of Jerusalem ended this requirement only around AD 49. The Jewish leadership denounced the "Nazarenes" (as Christians are still called in Hebrew) as heretics and worse, but still saw the Jews who led the early church as Jews. See for example Wilson, Marvin R. (1989). Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: William B Eerdmans Publishing. (This reliable source uses the term "Jewish Christian" throughout.) —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• Question Why not Jewish Christianity? The article subject is a movement, no? Looks like it's used somewhat commonly --JFH (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Christ was always a Hebrew, but never a Jew. He established a new religion. Even when he was younger there was a clash between him and Jewish elders. And this religion's greatest rival was Judaism. To emphasize the distinction we should use the word Hebrew, because the word Hebrew demonstrates ethnicity only while the word Jew is more ambiguous. When I proposed the change, I was aware Judeo-Christian has always been used by researchers to identify the original Christians. However, shouldn't we use the word Hebrew which is purely objective and not indicating a controversial ambiguity. It is not like I coined the term Hebrew Christians. It was always there. It is just less used compared to Judeo-Christians because of a common fault of scholars.-- İskenderBalas^💬 10:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Iskenderbalas: A few points.

1. I'm afraid I must take exception with the assertion that Jesus "established a new religion". He did no such thing. The Christian narrative is that Jesus formed the Church (that is, the collective group that would today be called Christians), which was originally Jewish in all senses of the word and identified as part of Second Temple Judaism, and that over the next century and a half this group became separated enough from mainstream Judaism that it defined itself as apart from, or in place of, Judaism, as Christianity. It isn't until AD 49, about two decades after the crucifixion, that the first step is made towards breaking away when the Church in Jerusalem decides not to make gentile converts be circumcised or observe Judaic law. (see Wilson. Our Father Abraham. pp. 87–90.) Even if you're going solely by what's in the New Testament, the council's decision at Jerusalem is in Acts, after the Gospels. It was Paul, more than anyone, who established Christianity as a religion separate from Judaism.
2. Jesus spoke from within Judaism and the Gospels make this very clear. The Gospels set him against other Jews and the contemporary leadership of the main Jewish sects, yes, but not against Judaism itself. Same applies to the Apostles and to Paul in other parts of the NT. (see Wilson, Our Father Abraham. p. 92).
3. I don't buy this idea of Jesus being "always a Hebrew, but never a Jew". In fact I find it rather offensive. If Jesus were not a Jew, why would he be circumcised on the eighth day? Why would he be described in the gospels as going "up" to Jerusalem with his family at the Jewish holidays? (The concept of going "up to Jerusalem" is significant in Judaism.) Why would the apostles call him "rabbi"? Why would he be tried by the Sanhedrin—and why would they have any authority over him? Why would "INRI" (ישוע הנוצרי, מלך היהודים—"Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews") be affixed to the cross? The list really goes on and on. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. In actual usage, "Jewish" is commonly an ethnic descriptor and at least some Jews and Christians regard these religions at not being mutually exclusive. Srnec (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I said all I was going to say on this matter. The decision belongs to the community. -- İskenderBalas^💬 17:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 29 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No support for the proposals, but Jewish Christians may be a better title if someone wants to start an RM for that suggestion. Number 57 14:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Jewish Christian → Jewish Christianity – Consistent with other articles on movements/communities. A common term for the subject. JFH (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The change from focusing on a person to a movement, which has many subgroups, to me does not bring more clarity. Unless thoroughly vetted, I recommend leaving this as is. Basileias (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - A move would change what should be included on the page as Basilicas noted, from an individual/person to a movement. Meatsgains (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment in a variety of ways a plurality is involved and a better title would be Jewish Christians. GregKaye 06:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

-Comment I was thinking the same thing, however it is covered in the article opening. Basileias (talk) 07:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 18 August 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Jewish Christian → First Christians – The current title "Jewish Christian" is somewhat correct, but is also confusing and might not be correct per be WP:COMMONNAME. Since the topic is early sects of Christianity (such as Nazorenes, Abionites, etc), we do find much references to "First Christians" and "Early Christians" in the academic debate in order to refer to those initial Christian communities in Roman Judaea and Syria ([1] and [2]), while "Jewish Christian" is both referring to modern Messianic Jews or Judaizing Christian sects and First/Early Christians (see [3]). GreyShark (dibra) 06:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
*Support but would prefer Early Christians. A "Jewish Christian" could easily refer to Messianic Jews or an early Jew who believed Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. ^Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 14:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment An early Jew who believed... is the focus of the article. Hence the intro ...original members of the Jewish movement....Basileias (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Neutral – during the time of Jesus, there were no "Christians" per se. The disciples considered themselves to be fully adherents to Second Temple Judaism and believed that Jesus is/was the Jewish Messiah, and fulfilled the position of the "suffering servant" in Messianic prophecies in his Crucifixion and Resurrection for the atonement of sin. So, it would be very misleading to state that they were the "First Christians" since they were adherents of Judaism but believed that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. The split of Christianity (as we know it) and Judaism did not happen instantly. Instead, it was gradual. IMO, I don't like the current or proposed title. ^Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 16:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Opposed A move would change what should be included in the article and the time period of focus. Basileias (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article also covers modern era.--Galassi (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article's focus is on the fact that Christianity, at the beginning, was a subset of Judaism. And the changes and tensions that occurred, largely due to the Judaism/universalism interplay, as Christianity evolved. Maybe somebody will think up a better article title than "Jewish Christian", but I think that the present title is more appropriate than "First Christians". Mksword (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jewish Christian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ia700204.us.archive.org/12/items/encyclopaediabib01cheyuoft/encyclopaediabib01cheyuoft.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101001231935/http://www.mcu.edu/papers/mess_jud.htm to http://www.mcu.edu/papers/mess_jud.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jewish Christian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510101852/http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7126 to http://goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7126

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Merged "Split of Early Christianity and Judaism" and "Origins of Christianity"

I've merged Split of Early Christianity and Judaism and Origins of Christianity into this article, per Talk:History of Christianity#Too many pages on the history of Early Christianity, due to the overlap of scope and content. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Is anyone actively interested/working on this article?

I am new to Wikipedia editing. It is quite overwhelming. I am retired and have discretionary time to devote to this endeavour. I have been a reader and student of early civilizations, Roman Empire and comparative religion for many years. I have been looking for articles within my areas of interest That need improvement. It is evident that this article, that was a candidate for deletion despite substantial scholarship on the matter, needs substantial improvement in terms of editing and scholarship. Some of the text stands on single sources, and does not include the latest research and scholarship. I will make sure that my contributions substantiated by references of leading active researchers. Is anyone actively interested/working on this article? [[User:A19470822|

@A19470822: I did quite some editing on this article. I think you'll have to make sure your edits become better; there have been too many reverts. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that editing Wikipedia is "quite overwhelming." For me in particular, one of the hardest parts are the little technical details and nuances of wiki editing which I still have to learn step-by-step as I edit. Never mind. As far as I understand, this artile is the key Wikipedia article regarding the history of the split between Judaism and Christianity. If I remember correctly, the title of this article was changed sometime from something alluding to the historical split between the two religions to the current one. As such, this is a very important historical article, in my view. I will be also be trying to follow your edits to the page with interest. Good luck in your endeavors. warshy ^(¥¥) 18:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Speculation and Theology

 Some Christian Jews are not accepted in either sects of Jewish and Christian branches. Specifically Jews do to some belief, look at this as a form of exile to Judaism. As to some Christians. Jewish Christians sometimes Call Jesus many different titles or names. Example, Rabbi, Teacher, Lord, Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua, Ese and more as look back in history. Jewish Christian accept Sacrifice of one self is an accepted new way instead of taking life as a Sacrifice. The new Way of Sacrifice is replaced with selflessness. Selfless acts proves to change outcomes in very positive ways. That's what most Jewish Christians believe in. We also follow The Commandments and  The Golden Rule. We also understand following religion instead GOD leads to Chaos and Destruction. Rabbi, David,Peter,Wright; Jewish Christian.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.141.101 (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC) 

Resurrection

One of the sentences in the introduction paragraph goes "Christianity started with Jewish eschatological expectations, and it developed into the worship of a deified Jesus after his earthly ministry, his crucifixion, and the post-crucifixion experiences of his followers." surely, "and his resurrection" should be in there? Isn't this what Christianity is about, believing in the resurrection of Jesus? dh74g3y (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

One can be interested in this subject without "believing in" miraculous claims. If there is a reference to "the resurrection" it should be to some people "believing in" it only. 98.156.132.189 (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)