Talk:Jews for Jesus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Christian Theology? :/

I don't quite follow the reason for this template, Jews for Jesus isn't an instrumental part of Christian theology, quite the contrary, as an individual outreach association they sort of don't dictate Christian theology really much at all :/. Perhaps an evangelism-related template if there is one would be more appropriate? Homestarmy 04:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No offense intended. It seems there exists either confusion or intenional effort to present JFJ, a Christian sect, as some branch of Judaism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The confusion comes from their view as both. They are Christiam by claim, if I remember correctly, and are viewed as such by many traditional Christian churches (they confess the teachings of the Nicene Creed, I believe). On the other hand, their claim is that they are truly Jews who have found the Messiah. They are not a denomination, in the sense of having churches (synagogues), clergy, a budget, etc. But theologically, they fit in the Christian orbit. Practically speaking, it is helpful to find a way to link their theological statements in some form to some Christian article. --CTS Wyneken^(talk) 10:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

But the article doesn't really discuss this organizations theology much, and they don't seem amazingly concerned with making it, just with evangelizing in their own way :/. Homestarmy 06:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily suggesting the infobox stay in, just trying to help explain why they are hard to pidgeonhole. They see themselves as both Jewish and Christian. As far as theological statements, they are typical of many Parachurch organizations. They see they role as supplementing, not replacing church bodies. As a seminary staff memember, however, let me observe that we do not view such organizations as either devoid of theology or not a part of the theological conversation that defines what Christians believe. Many laymen in Christian churches are influenced in their theological outlooks by such groups. Our pastors have mixed feelings about such, since often we have the job of explaining that the theological views of such groups are often at odds with our own tradition. Yet sometimes the influence (think Promise Keepers) can be good. But this is going afield from the article. I just want to help by observing such movements are difficult to define, but do have definite theological influence. --CTS Wyneken^(talk) 10:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If you find {{christianity}} more appropriate, I wouldn't mind. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

well you wouldn't mind, but that doesn't give you the right to enforce it's inappropriate inclusion, by protecting the page. Jews for Jesus is no more a mainstream Christian organization than it is a mainstream Jewish organization , If you look at the articles Young Life, Navigators and Teen Challenge, you will notice none of them have the Christianity template, they like Jews for Jesus also being fringe parachurch evangelical organizations.so how does removing an inappropriate template, as well as unsourced original research (which you restored against the WP:OR policy) constitute vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MCohen (talk • contribs)

1. I'll leave it up to other editors to decide whether we need to create a Christian sect template.
2. MCohen, are you here to promote JFJ? It seems like it, because you have removed the criticism [1] and you inserted [2] WP:OR that JFJ is a "Jewish-Christian" org. Note that I also removed the comparison to vegetarians for meat.

No I'm not here to promote JFJ, personally I have manymany of criticisms of that organization, but I believe that they should be accurately portrayed in this article, and that this article should be be used to inform people this organization objectively and not used as a means of slandering the organization or "warning" people about the organization. I put the phrase "Jewish-Christian" in because that is what they are they are, christian jews. While many here may dislike it or disagree with it, there is NO Rabbinic authority that claims that any belief can turn a Jew into a Gentile, and all the reliable sources on the organization acknowledge the Jewish heritage of Moishe Rosen,etc. The paragraphs I removed, were not removed because they were anti JFJ, they were removed because they were unsourced theoretical objection of the theological point of Jews believing in Jesus, and had NOTHING to do with any sourced criticisms of the organization of Jews for Jesus. The remaining criticisms, that met wikipedia criteria, I support. MCohen 18:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Anon, I invite you to register and participate in the project according to its WP:RULES. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I did register, but unfortunately the computer I'm using won't accept any cookies, so I have not been able to post under my username MCohen. I have manually edited it in in place of My IP address, but I will reverse that, if I am informed that it violates wikpedia policy MCohen08:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There really ought to be something like a {{Evangelism}} template, alot of organizations like this one could fit in it and i'm sure there's gotta be different categories of evangelism which could be verified, and that way, it wouldn't necessarily indicate Christianity, just evangelism of some sort :/. Homestarmy 00:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

An evangelism template would be usefull and there are many articles that could benefit from it, and I expect that even Moishe Rosen would welcome it here. However, I do not support using the tag as a "Warning post", but rather as a means of associating this article with other articles about evangelism and evangelistic organizations (e.g. Young Life, Navigators, Teen Challenge,Youth With A Mission, etc )MCohen 16:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking last night about organizing one into categories, but it occurs to me, is there really a way to categorize evangelism? There's some terms I use to describe different kinds, but they probably only mean the right thing to a very limited number of people, and I can't find anything besides "Hell-fire preaching" and, well, everything else that Wikipedia really recognizes. Homestarmy 17:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't need a template. A "category" would be OK. Maybe even an "infobox". One thing for certain, it isn't a part of the "series" on Christianity. Justforasecond 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that it doesn't need a template, I would support an {{Evangelism}} template, since independent evangelical organizations are a unique sociological phenomenon. MCohen 20:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, anyone have any idea's on categories for such a template? I could try to make one, but i'd have to figure out how to do it first, can templates use collapsable tabs? I was thinking that a more general-purpose "Evangelism" template would include other religions, even though the Evangelism article does state that it's primarily a Christian term and/or endeavor, it notes that other religions practice it too in some ways. Homestarmy 22:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Its pretty easy to make a category. Templates range from brain-dead easy to very tricky. If you know how you want it to look I could work through it with you, but I'd like a pledge from other editors to stop vandalizing the article with the statement that this article is "part of the series on christianity", cuz it ain't Justforasecond 00:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I mean what the category should actually say, I can't think of anything that's really a recognized term or way of separating things out, the Approaches to evangelism article needs far too much work to be a reliable way of petitioning it. Also, vandalism is when they break the integrity of a page and the template doesn't do that, at most, i'd say it's POV pushing. (But even then, the first few lines just say "This is incompatible with Judaism", if a reader isn't convinced by that, then the template won't convince them either probably). Homestarmy 00:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Information

Trying to understand what is Jews for Jesus is all about. Jewman 15:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Im personally not entirely certain. On the surface, they seem to be an evangelical organization which concentrates its efforts in the Israel area, specifically concerning trying to evangelize to Jews. (Religiously Jews I mean) There are a few oddities that i've seen however, they seem to be under the impression that modern day Judaism is somehow compatable with Christianity, (It's not, things were re-written hundreds of years ago I think in Rabbinic Judaism specifically to write Jesus out, something about Jesus not fulfilling prophecies in a manner quick enough for people's liking or something) and that Christianity "compleats" this Judaism, which doesn't seem entirely accurate. I'm also uncertain on how exactly they evangelize, of course with any evangelical organization basically you'll get plenty of complainers who want to stir up trouble simply because they don't like evangelism at all, but there's of course been the rather typical accusations of bullying, strong-arm tactics, etc. etc., which may or may not be true. I haven't read into much detail with this organization though, im afraid I can't enlighten you beyond the basics. Homestarmy 00:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Whilst not having had enough contact with the organisation to offer an opinion on their methods/general cuddlyness or otherwise, I think that the idea that a Jew who becomes a Christian is "completing" their Jewishness is entirely rationally defensible, even though i might try and use less inflammatory language (although, lets face it, its a fairly unavoidably incendiary idea, whatever terminology you use) Given that Christians believe Jesus - a Jew - claimed to fulfil the law, not abolish it, and to be the promised messiah, a person coming from Jewish belief in the coming messiah and the law, to a belief in Jesus as the messiah and fulfilment of the law, would be seen from a Christian point of view as "completing" their faith. And from a Jewish point of view as apostasizing (the trinity being a fairly major sticking point, for one, i'm guessing). For what its worth i think the article in its current form is much less biased than it might be, but then, i was looking up the whole intelligent design issue earlier. The best thing, i would say is just if more information could be added, representing all points of view - whats up there at the moment seems to be presented neutrally, but i don't think there's enough to present a whole picture? Linus 14 august 2006

Oh beleive me, its vandalism -- this is clearly not a part of the series on christianity. None of the editors putting it up have explained how this is a part of the seris on christianity, but they continue to put in text that says "part of the series on christianity". Justforasecond 00:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Several categories can be applied: christianity, judaism, missionary groups, evangelistic groups. We don't need just a single category to describe groups. Justforasecond 00:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Justforasecond, have you even read WP:VANDAL? Because it seriously does only apply to comprimising the integrity of pages, and it specifically mentions at the bottom that POV pushing is not vandalism. Homestarmy 00:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup I read it. This is not a POV dispute. It's not a matter of saying "J4J is deceitful" (which is POV) it is saying that "This article is part of the seris on christianity".....it isn't. It is information that is easily verifiable as untrue (just read the list). Knowingly inserting false information into an article is vandalism. The first few times people put this template up there may have been some question as to whether it belonged, but I've said it enough times now that there's little question anymore. Justforasecond 00:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "series" links to the general christian category. Often similar templates are used even when they aren't listed on the main template (would you prefer if the template instead said something like "This article is a Christianity related article" or something similar). JoshuaZ 01:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that if they keep inserting it, then they don't think it's wrong. Of course, that doesn't make them right, but "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism". Homestarmy 01:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Jesus for Jews

As of July 2006 there is an extensive ad campaign in New York City subways; and the campaign is beginning to advertise on the radio. This is billed as "Jesus for Jews". Is there any connection?

Can you give any links? It certainly sounds related, though there is more than one Messianic Judaism evangelism based organization out there i'd figure. Homestarmy 21:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I was in NY this July and there were JfJ representatives handing out tracts all over the city (at the Mets game, at the macys independance day fireworks, etc.) must have been offered the tracts at least half a dozen times, probably more. They seemed to be handing them out indiscriminately to everyone passing by, and were not "in-yer-face" or bullying, or actually even engaging in any preaching/verbal gospel presentation etc. My overall initial impression was relatively favourable, to be honest. I don't know if this represents a change in approach by the group - more general evangelism, rather than specifically looking to convince Jews of Jesus' messianic claims - the tracts did not seem to specifically focus on Judaism; they were fairly general two-ways-to-live type stuff. Linus, 14 august 2006

As someone added in concerning this same event apparently, they may of been mis-representing a certain person's religious affiliation in an attempt to garner support, which seems sort of deceptive. Can't people just use the Law in evangelism to bring about repentence, instead of putting people's faces on tracts and saying "Look, this guy's Christian (supposedly), why don't you come join him?" Homestarmy 00:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's Jews for Jesus. The pamphlet is on their website: [3]. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 07:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality?

Could someone please specify which points specifically they found to be problematic? I am Jewish and I just skimmed the article, and I think this, for the most part, fairly represents this Messianic cult that aims for the elimination of Jews. Also I did not see specific descussion on the talk page about which problems there were with POV. - Abscissa 20:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Elimination of Jews? You know, deciding to no longer be a Jew religion-wise doesn't mean you've been "eliminated", this isn't like one of those laser tag games. (You know, "YOU HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED FROM THE GAME!!!! and whatnot) :D Homestarmy 00:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I don't understand, but isn't it possible to be Jewish and also believe in Jesus? I'm not sure about the NPOV issues but there were some paragraphs that were uncited. Justforasecond 03:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That would make you Christian. Jesus was Jewish, not Chrisitan. There is no other way to define it. - Abscissa 04:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

So Jesus didn't believe he himself existed? Did he ever say he wasn't Jewish? Or was he excommunicated after death? Justforasecond 04:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say since Jesus was sort of, you know, the Son of God, He was a bit more than simply "Jewish". Besides, it doesn't matter what religion you are, if you're ethnically Jewish, you can't change that really. Homestarmy 12:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

removed "christianity"

this article is not, as far as i can tell, part of the series on christianity. it isn't in very good condition and doesn't show up on the list of articles in the christianity template.

Justforasecond 03:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This absolutely positively belongs as part of the series on Christianity. Removing this article would be grounds to remove "moromonism" , "anglicanism", "the united church" and virtually every other splinter group that supports Jesus. The fact that they call themselves "Jews" is grounds for absolutely nothing. If there were a group called "Jews for Hitler" the amount of benefit they would get by calling themselves "Jews" is exactly 0%. - Abscissa 04:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Mormonism, "Anglicanism", the "United Church" look, are mainstream Chritian Denominations with Millions of Members. In contrast, look at Navigators, Teen Challenge, Young Life,Youth with a Mission, non those organizations have the "christianity template because the are small fringe missionary organizations, Yet they are all much larger than than Jews for Jesus. this artlcle is about the organization of "Jews for Jesus" which has no public membership, and only and only has about 100 employees, MCohen 08:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I encourage you to work on a template {{Christian evangalism}} or {{Christian sect}}. Until we have it, this one is the best we've got. I would oppose attempts to remove it, and I would oppose attempts to paint JFJ as a Jewish or Jewish-Christian group. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Guys, this article can be related to Christianity and not be a part of the series on christianity. The wikipedia series are usually collections of high quality articles and the articles that are part of the series are usually linked in the template. Here's a reality check for anyone that says "It has Jesus in the title, therefore it is part of the sesries on Christianity". Well is this article a part of the series on judaism because it has "Jews" in the title? Justforasecond 04:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is still unclear that (notwithstanding what they call themselves) they are not Jews, then the template is even more needed. I understand the sensitivities and would prefer to avoid bad feelings, so I welcome suggestions for a better template. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Here, you are openly stating that your purpose for having the template has nothing to do with the purpose of the template, but rather to support the assertion that Jews for Jesus is an organization of Gentiles, an assertion that is not only POV, but verifiably false. The very assertion that this article needs a template, to prevent people from thinking Jews for Jesus are Jews, is proof that your goal is not neutral, and because of yur lack of neutrality on the subject matter, I request that you recuse yourself from any administrative interventions in this article, and leave such duties to those who are less passionatly opinionated about the subject matter.MCohen 19:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that precedent for the Christianity template to be placed on articles has to do with particular denominations or relatively large groups of people and/or important doctrines in Christianity. Since JfJ seems to have, what, just 100 employees, what's next, does the template go on pages mentioning 50 supposed Christians, 20, 10, or even on every single individual page listed in Category:Christian people? Also, the "Series on Christianity" sort of thing is supposed to be on important parts and aspects of Christianity. This organization is indeed notable for various reasons on its own, but is it an important part and/or aspect of Christianity, which an encyclopedia should note in a section on Christianity or else risk being incompleate on coverage of Christianity? And, furthermore, the article does now come right out in the first few sentences and say "Their beliefs are not compatible with Judaism", if anyone can read that sentence and still say "No, Wikipedia is compleatly wrong", will the template convince them to think otherwise? Homestarmy 01:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyone who can give a valid reason why the "series on Christianity" should include the article "Jews for Jesus", (notice I didn;t say why should the article "jews for jesus include christianity template, because tyhat is logically reversed from the purpose of the template) so far NO ONE have even attempted given any justification for its inclusion. Unless there is a valid reason that this article merits inclusion in the series, the template doesn't belong here, and must be removed. MCohen 07:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You "logically reversed" logic is wrong. Where did you get the idea that only the articles listed in the template should include it? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

: i never said anything about "listed in the template", I said "merit inclusiuon in the series", which you STILL have not addressed. MCohen 19:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

bad citations

One recent citation supposedly proved that Christian groups oppose Jews for Jesus[4]

Here's what the article says:

"Churches are bound by the principle of accepting the self-definition of other religious groups. Those that call themselves Messianic Jews, Hebrew Christians or Jews for Jesus have to be accepted in their own right. However, such groups should not be considered to be representative of the Jewish community nor are they representative of the Christian community. Church-Jewish relationships depend upon direct relations between the Churches and Jewish groups."

It doesn't say anything about Christian groups opposing Jews for Jesus.

The next does not mention Jews for Jesus at all [5]

The next does not have Christians criticizing Jews for Jesus specifically, just "Many mainstream Christians groups and leaders such as the Presbyterian Church USA, the Roman Catholic Church, and Billy Graham have said that missionary work targeting Jews is at least “theologically invalid” and at worst that it “dishonors G-d.”"

The next doesn't mention *any* Christians that oppose Jews for Jesus. [6]

I don't think the claim that Christian churches oppose J4J is untrue, but these citations are no good. I'm going to remove this editor's citations because I don't think its worhwhile to have to determine which are truthful and which aren't.

Please be sure to include only legitimate citations.

Thanks! Justforasecond 04:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not how WP works, my friend. You blindly reverted, removing all the new links. In addition you edited out important points such as fundamental difference between Christianity and Judaism, vitally important here. This one time I'll give you a benefit of a doubt and assume good faith. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like more an issue of how the information in the links is presented rather than the content itself. Are you saying the citations given are invalid, or that how Wikipedia represents the content is incorrect? Homestarmy 12:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The links point to real articles, sometimes even mentioning Jews for Jesus(!) but they were presented inline as if they proved Christian groups opposed Jews for Jesus (they didn't). After looking into several of them and finding them lacking, I removed all of them. You can't put 10 citations in an article and expect other editors to look up every single one of them when the first four were illegit. This is not a blind revert -- it was actually a lot of work (see all the writing above?) Justforasecond 14:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the first time I hear that adding 10 citations is bad. "Illegit" is your POV. There is nothing wrong with a quote "missionary work targeting Jews is at least “theologically invalid” and at worst that it “dishonors G-d.”" ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh, are you saying there is nothing wrong with the fact that at least some of the citations you passed off as proving Christian groups oppose J4J did not say *anything* about J4J, and others mentioned J4J only in passing? Hmmmmmm Justforasecond 21:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, hold up here, Justforasecond, if some of the citations don't name the group but instead simply refer to a mission similar to this group, then that doesn't mean the citations get to be deleted, it can also mean the actual content can be re-written to more accuratly reflect the sources, for instance, "So and so directly critizised JfJ personally" can be re-written to read: "So and so notable person says concerning what groups such as JfJ engage in is bad or something". And nextly, since this is the Jews for Jesus article and not the Christian Evangelism for Jews, don't you, Humus, think that if the citations more accuratly reflected the more general trend on opinion concerning evangelism towareds evangelizing to jews instead of actually concerning Jews for Jesus personally, that having so many citations and groups named in such detail is quite a bit more than necessary? Homestarmy 21:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The links are there because the article says "All mainstream Jewish groups..." ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears that Justforasecond is trying to say that some of those citations don't actually name Jews for Jesus itself, which would therefore mean that some citations may not support the statement "...strongly oppose Jews for Jesus". Homestarmy 22:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The list has been reworked since then. Suggestions, improvements, constructive criticism are most welcome. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"all" jewish groups and more bad citations

I don't have the time to look all of these up, but came across this one, inline next to "All Jewish groups oppose Jews for Jesus"

[7] Why 'Jews for Jesus' is evil

By Bradley Burston

We were driving in the Galilee, waiting for a red light to change, when they came up to the car. Their smiles were engagingly open as they wished us a fine trip. Then they offered us the flyer.

Jews for Jesus. Who says that evil can't be imported, and delivered, free of charge, direct to your car door? (etc)

This is hardly proving that all jewish groups oppose J4J. This is just one, extremely nasty individual writing an opinion piece. The next link is just the same guy responding to letters and giving us a story from his childhood that sounds a little contrived to me.[8]

Furthermore, even if the citations were legit, there's no way to prove that all mainstream jewish groups oppose J4J.

Please, do not include misleading inline citations. It shouldn't be up to the rest of us to verify what is put in here.

Justforasecond 14:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Justforasecond, you make it difficult to assume good faith. The text said "All mainstream Jewish groups..." and you turned it into "all jewish groups". First, Jews prefer capital J, and second, you'll have to name which mainstream Jewish group supports JFJ to regain any credibility you are rapidly losing here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to say "all" anything, the burden of proof is on you. You will never be able to find an authoritative list of all "mainstream" Jewish groups, let alone find citations showing that they all oppose J4J. So, keep the "all" out of this article. Justforasecond 21:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My question stands. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Humus, yer outta luck. In wiki, you can't state something and challenge others to disprove it. Quite the opposite: you need to provide a citation from a reliable source that support your statements or others may remove them. I doubt you will find any, but give it a whirl. Justforasecond 22:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A bunch of reliable and verifiable sources, including NY Board of Rabbis are there for your inquisition. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added a quote reflecting position of four major Jewish denominations. FYI, there are four of them total. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"According to Jewish law, a person is always Jewish - regardless of whether they reject their heritage, ignore it, or practice another religion. In the book of Joshua 7:11, G-d declares that "Israel has sinned" due to a severe transgression done by the nation. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 44a) explains: Even though Israel has sinned, God still calls they by the name 'Israel.' In other words, they are still considered Jews. And that is how we know that a Jew is always a Jew no matter what. With blessings from Jerusalem,"- (Rabbi Shraga Simmons Yeshiva Aish HaTorah -Jeruselem). So you see it is a Blatantly false statement that all Mainstream Jews groups claim that Jews for Jesus is not Jewish. 12.218.150.29 06:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

And yet:

Yet there are limits to pluralism, beyond which a group is schismatic to the point where it is no longer considered Jewish. For example, everyone considers Messianic Judaism and belief in Buddah as outside of the Jewish sphere.

drseudo (t) 06:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Err... the Jews are Jewish. When they are for Jesus, they are not practicing Judaism. --Eliyak T·C 06:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess their Jewishness is suspended until they become Baal teshuva. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The way I read that statement, is that the beliefs and practices of Messianic Jews and Buddhist Jews (notice that he puts both groups in question in the same catagory) are not jewish practices and beliefs, yet that Messianic Jews (he seems to mix JFJ and Mesianic Jews together) and Buddhist Jews still remain immutably Jewish. and by his previous statement "The Jewish people do say that there's "More than one way to be a good Jew." We have Chassidic vs. Misnagdic, Sefardic vs. Ashkenazic, and even the Talmudic split between Shammai and Hillel.", I would conclude that Rabbi Shraga would exclude Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, and every other deviant movement from the list of "Good Jews" as well". The point still remains, Once a Jew always a Jew, 12.218.150.29 07:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If someone was born Jewish, surely it is impossible to undo that. If you are talking about the group JFJ, this is not a Jewish group. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

a christian or jewish group?

Jews for Jesus can't be called a "Christian evangelical group" in the intro -- here's why.

Jews for Jesus is made up of Jewish (ethnically, culturally, traditionally) people that believe in Jesus. Believing in Jewishwoops!Jesus makes them Christian...but it doesn't mean they aren't Jewish anymore. Now some people might start jumping up and down when I say this, but others will agree wholeheartedly. That's the point -- it isn't a neutral statement.

So I think its best left out of the intro and just describe J4J as precisely what it is. An organization of Jewish folks teaching other Jewish folks about Jesus.

Justforasecond 14:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No, many so called J4J's have no Jewish ancestry even. The belief structure is christian and evangelical. Furthermore, J4J's have almost no cultural or "traditional" Jewish elements. JoshuaZ 14:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

But the thing of it is, the article isn't very big on exactly what JfJ's belief structure is, I barely even get it myself, is it Messianic Judaism or what? :/ Homestarmy 16:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the article on "Messianic Judiasm" mentions the distinction between those types of groups and "Jews for Jesus." Or at least it did the last time I read it. The biggest distinction I can see (though it probably isn't in the article) is that J4J tries to maintain a much higher profile, with radio ads (in New York City at least), pamphlets, a presence on college campuses (at least in the northeast U.S.), etc., while the "Messianic Jews" are much quieter. 6SJ7 21:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many J4Js don't have Jewish ancestry, but even if some don't, it is clear they at least claim they are Jewish. Look at the name: "Jews for Jesus". Whether some Jewish people dislike it or not, it's pretty obvious they are trying to get across the point that the group is Jewish. So its odd to insist that the group be called Christian. The first sentence should just state what the group is, not come to a conclusion about it (its fine with me if the article later includes some fo this) --

That is an absolute, complete, total lie. They don't "believe in Jewish". They are an organisation disguised as Jews with the goal of eliminating Judaism. - Abscissa 16:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Abscissa and JoshuaZ are correct. It seems that there is some confusion here, so I have added the ==Belief== section. I would appreciate if we do not start a religious war. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Jews for Jesus is a group that tries to get Jews to convert to Christianity. It is not a denomination per se, but rather a proselytizing group. Some of its members are Jews, others are not; many have some sort of "Jewish ancestry", without actually being Jewish. For exanple, the current Executive Director, David Brickner, had a Jewish father but not a Jewish mother, so is not Jewish according to Jewish law, though he describes himself as Jewish. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for David Brickners mother not being Jewish? MCohen 19:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice this. See the bottom of this section. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

But what kind of "Christianity" is this group talking here, just really basic non-denominational stuff or what? I thought alot of these groups concerning Judaism liked to put some sort of weird thing into their "evangelism" concerning observing the torah or something. And once again with the eliminating Judaism thing, this isn't an international laser tag game...Homestarmy 21:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The organization of Jews for Jesus is not affilated with any church or denomination. Individual employees are memebrs of many different types of Churches, and some are part of Messianic Jewish groups. MCohen

This article seems pretty accurate to me. (Somewhat to my surprise, I have to say.) J4J is in fact a Christian evangelical group that has some ethnically Jewish members, who they exploit as part of their deception in trying to convert Jews on the theory that a belief in Christianity is the culmination of "Jewishness." The article essentially says what I just said, but in NPOV terms. 6SJ7 21:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh you won't gain a lot of credibility using terms like "exploit" and "deception". The point is not whether Jews for Jesus is Jewish...but that we can't call it Christian as the very first word in the description and still be NPOV. Justforasecond 21:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary, the article cannot be NPOV unless it correctly identifies this group as being Christian. As for the other words I used, I specifically recognized the non-NPOV-ness of my comment, which is ok because it isn't in the article. Of course, if reliable sources use those words, that's a different story, because the pro-J4J viewpoint is represented as well. 6SJ7 22:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC

No one is suggesting that this organization isn't Christian (JFJ is not a "group", it is a non profit corporation), they themselves call themselves Christian. They are also Jewish. This idea you have that they are a bunch of anti-semitic gentiles deceptively tryiing to destroy Jews, is based on an ignorance of the individuals involoved. If you had known Moishe Rosen personally, you might totally disagre with him, but you could never say he was either a Gentile nor anti-Semitic. Now if you want to talk about distroying Judaism, the conservative and reform movements have done a pretty good job of distroying Judaism, leading millions away from Torah, (compared to the few hundred that JFJ have lead away from Torah.) MCohen 19:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

One problem I see right now is that the only citation for what JfJ believes is from a single article from religioustolerance.com and the article doesn't seem to directly link to any actual pages of JfJ's site or anything, which seems inadequate for what, I assume from the sudden spike in talk page discussion and page edits, is quite a serious topic to some people. Homestarmy 22:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Mcohen, you ask above for a source that Brickner's mother is not Jewish. Here is one: [9] Brickner himself admits she is not. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the official Wikipedia policy on the definition of "Jew" contrary to halakha (sorry for the Yeshivish) many children of Jewish fathers who have been identified as Jews, one that comes to mind is [[Dianne Feinstein]. Are they allowed to be called Jews in Wikipedia?? 12.218.150.29 07:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need to go around to every page about someone with that sort of Jewish ancestry and add the tagline "This person's Jewishness is disputed." I assume the proper thing to do is to say that the person's father was Jewish and not mention halakha at all. --Eliyak T·C 07:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

bias in this article

its clear there are some anti J4J people here. i encourage you to put aside your biases and edit in the spirit of wiki. putting in misleading citations or citations calling J4J "evil" and using generalizations like "all mainstream jewish groups" oppose J4J will not improve the article. remember, wiki is not a soapbox.

Justforasecond 23:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

ps a warm welcome to wikistalker drseudo.

oh please. drseudo (t) 00:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Golden words. Change "anti" to "pro" and read it aloud. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I gotta give Just some credit though, possible mis-representation's of WP:V aside, his first sentence does seem accurate. Homestarmy 00:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

A couple of us who are involved are Jews and we seem not to be ashamed as this information is clearly posted on our user information pages. This does not necessarily make us biased. While I cannot speak for my fellow editors, I am an extremely liberal Jew personally and call for the liberation of Palestine, for example, but in any event as a Jew I would say I have an "above average" awareness of this organisation and its goals. I would also say I have an "above average" awareness of Scientology, for example (nothing to do with Judaism). A NPOV description of Scientology might describe them as a religious group of people interested in exploring metaphysical principles blah blah, which is demonstrably false. It is also demonstrably false that "Jews for Jesus" is a bunch of friendly, Torah-loving, humble, Wailing-wall hugging red sea pedestrians who happen to worship Jesus as G-d through happenstance. By traditional definiton, their very acceptance of "Jesus" as anyone other than a nice Jew makes them Christian. - Abscissa 00:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hold on a minute, where does the JfJ website say that they either love the Torah or hug the wailing wall? (and how does one even hug the wailing wall anyway, isn't it sort of flat?) And on Scientology, the references for that article pretty much speak for themselves, and the article properly states that Scientology "claims" to be a self-help group and whatnot. (at least it did when I read the intro about 25 seconds ago). Homestarmy 00:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow it seems that all of us are ashamed to identify these people with our religion?!?!? I'm leaving here before Fred Phelps gets involved. - Abscissa 00:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be glad to of supported these guys earlier in our latest conversation because, at face value, their website seems quite reasonable and their mission appears good, except for one slight problem: I can't find any sort of mission or belief statement anywhere on their website. This is very suspicious to me, how am I supposed to know if their website presents the whole story if they won't even show what they believe up front and center besides "evangelizing to Jews"? (which is vauge and can mean several things) I don't like the idea of depending on Religioustolerance.com to tell me what people believe because first of all I don't agree with how it claims I personally believe in things, (thus making me not consider it credible on its own) and secondly because it doesn't specify how it discerned JfJ's beliefs. Who knows if their article found them all? Homestarmy 00:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This seems to summarize their beliefs: [10]. There is a lot of other info on the website but I had to click on a few things before finding the beliefs. Justforasecond 02:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, there it is heh. Homestarmy 12:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

A belief in divinity of Jesus is incompatible with Judaism

Dozens of authoritative, verifiable, reliable sources assert this but the weaseling still continues: [11]. Haven't some people learn in school to tolerate the religious beliefs of others? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I would like to endorse the above comment... and I would ask you all to imagine if there were a group called "Christians against Jesus" that denied Jesus' existence and tried to convert its members to Judaism... the existence of such a group would be equally offensive and dispicable. - Abscissa 11:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Pretty standard wiki stuff here -- just like we can't say "all Jewish groups oppose J4J", we can't make a generalizations about incompatibility -- only say that so-and-so considers believing in Jesus incompatible with Judaism. Not everyone thinks it is incompatible. Messianic Judaism is a whole movement that considers the two perfectly compatible. Justforasecond 15:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you really think about what Judaism is today, then yea, it is incompatible :/. If I understand this correctly, in rabbinic Judaism today there's something called a "responsa" where rabbi's and such wrote down a bunch of answers to people's questions, and one of the answers was "Jesus isn't God" -___-. So sadly enough, i'm fairly certain it is incompatible, at least with modern judaism. Homestarmy 16:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Homestamy, this isn't a theological debate -- it's wiki policy. The Messianics think it i perfectly compatible. Some others may think its not. We can't "really think about what Judaism is" and come to our own conclusions, we can just cite what others have said in a balanced, neutral way. Justforasecond 16:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

PS a warm welcome to joshuaz -- josh, thanks for the reverts!

In a way, you're right, but i'm afraid im not too big on political correctness. All the stuff that went into forming modern Rabbinic Judaism pretty much took over the religion, and it's not compatible. Now, i'll give you this, from my point of view, it sure would be nice if it was compatible somehow. But i'm afraid I just don't see it if I look at it from what Judaism is today. It's just plain changed too much in the last 2,000 years or so. The Judaism from 2,000 years ago probably was "compatible", (though I doubt that they'd use that term back then) because there was no responsa or Talmudic law back then, but Judaism then is not the same as Judaism now. Homestarmy 17:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

How is the Compatibility of belief in Jesus, and Judaism at all relevent? This article is about the Organization of Jews for Jesus, not about theology. I get the impression that there are people here that are so afraid that this article is going to influence a Jew to believe in Jesus that they are totally unable to see the innapropriatness of adding POV information and original research, to this article. MCohen 20:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, it seems extremely odd to me that people would actually want the article to say "This is compleatly incompatible with Judaism" when in most other articles people insist that every source saying that something is incompatible with (insert religion here) should state that it merely claims that the religion is incompatible, like with Christianity and a whole lot of paragraphs starting with "Most Christians believe" and whatnot. But eh, you win some you lose some. Homestarmy 21:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right homestarmy. Some people claim it is incompatible -- wiki can't posit this as an actual fact, and it doesn't belong in the intro. Some people claim it is perfectly compatible. I'd change it myself but Joshuaz or Drseudo would likely revert. Justforasecond 21:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, do you have any sources besides the JfJ statement thing I found which put up a good argument saying it is compatible? Because whether or not people let you cite it, i'd like to read it as a matter of interest myself, I could be wrong about Rabbinic Judaism after all heh. Homestarmy 21:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about J4J -- I think your best bet is the anon MCohen editor. He/she sounds like he knows a more about J4J than most of us. Justforasecond 21:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

MCohen: "afraid that this article is going to influence a Jew to believe in Jesus" - What part of Jews do not believe in divinity of Jesus you don't get? Good encyclopedias explain and systematize things. Why do you insist that WP should be used as a vehicle for deceptive practices?

"How is the Compatibility of belief in Jesus, and Judaism at all relevent?" - Glad you've asked: because JFJ's claim that this belief is compatible with Judaism is a cornerstone of their deception.

Justforasecond: "Some people claim it is perfectly compatible." - I challenge you to cite WP:V, WP:RS, or you will be called a crusading liar. This went on for a bit too long. How much time do you need to prove it, a week? Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeesh, that's pretty hostile Humus. Homestarmy 23:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I would not say it is hostile after all of the "Trolling" that has gone on here. In fact it is a matter of common sense. In the same way, a belief that Jesus never existed or was just a normal guy is incompatible with Christianity. Very straightforward!! Let's try not to offend each other. - Abscissa 23:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "normal" Abscissa. If you mean normal as in not divine and mostly just like another man on a fundamental level, then im afraid the Christianity article has (unfortunently) been written so that groups that most certainly do not believe Jesus to be divine at all are certainly not presented as unequivocally "Incompatible with Christianity" at all, despite the large plethora of statements of faith and whatnot from most churches and pretty much all mainstream Christian groups affirming otherwise, despite what's in the Bible itself, (which many love to insist is OR to try and glean the meaning of) and despite much of early church history spent trying to disprove (Or, sadly in some cases which make me glad to not be Catholic, attacking physically) those ideas. And yet, the Christianity article certainly does not try to say that anybody who is notable and claims to be a Christian has beliefs incompatible with Christianity. The farthest anything comes to trying to say "These groups are not Christian" is where things might say "This idea is rejected by the majority of Christian denominations", and that's pretty much it. So in my experience, what's happening in this article is extremely inconsistant with what i've seen elsewhere concerning topics related to Christianity. Now, would I like for the Christianity article to say that groups who clearly aren't Christian actually aren't, you know, Christian,? Absolutly! But I can't, because that's not how people mostly like to use policy and is not how Wikipedia apparently works now. I'll give you this, it certainly does seem that Rabbinic Judaism is not compatible at all with Judaism, because as far as I know one of the little add-on things Judaism now says specifically somewhere that anyone who believes in Jesus isn't a Jew or something. So i'm not saying that it's compleatly wrong to state that it isn't compatible. I'm saying that it's not how Wikipedia has generally been written in the past, and as far as I know no other well-watched article is written like this one is concerning who is "compatible" and who isn't.

Also, considering Humus just assumed bad faith by saying to that anon "Why do you insist that WP should be used as a vehicle for deceptive practices" and threatened to perform a personal attack on Justforasecond "I challenge you to cite WP:V, WP:RS, or you will be called a crusading liar." I would say that it was indeed pretty hostile. Now, i'll give you all this, I don't understand or really appreciate how angry some of you people seem to be at this group or why, but one thing I do know is that when people get exited about issues they care deeply about, the flames are bound to, well, flame. So of course hostility will happen. But I don't think that's an excuse to just let it burn itself out or ignore it if it's directed at the person whom people think started it, because first that normally doesn't work too well, and second because sometimes people end up saying things they really regret saying as an afterthought. So I think a little caution would be warrented. Homestarmy 23:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it was not a personal attack. I challenge the argument, which incidentally many may find offensive. How is it wrong to challenge an editor to show a source for his own words that he keeps repeating? As if we do not have enough Neo-Nazis, Islamists, petty vandals, POV warriors who daily attack articles on Jews and Judaism. BTW, if you find that the article on Jesus is bad, this is a wrong place to retaliate: two wrongs dont' make one right. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The article I referred to was actually Christianity, all in all, I'd say the Jesus article has come together reasonably well, (besides a few spotty areas) so one right and one wrong actually does make, well, one right and one wrong in that case. And to challenge an argument, is it seriously necessary to threaten to refer to someone as a "crusading liar" if they refuse to defend themselves? I mean i'm not saying it isn't suspicious if somebody claims something you really don't like, then you post some replies, and then they never show up with good references even though you do, but I don't see how it then becomes obvious that the editor in question is a "crusading liar". Homestarmy 01:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy seems to have summed it all up pretty well. Anyway, I've already named some folks that consider it compatible -- see Messianic Judaism. They are Jewish and also believe in Jesus. Even if I didn't give an example, wiki policy is not to put a flag out there ("all jewish groups oppose jews for jesus") and demand others prove it wrong or else they are crusading liars. The policy is to put something cited out there, or you may find it removed. Justforasecond 01:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The Messianic Judaism article itself states that the movement grew out of the "Hebrew Christian" movement. Does that sound very Jewish to you? Messianic Judaism, Hebrew Christianity and Jews for Judaism were all various movements backed by the Church with the aim of converting Jews, using the tactic of claiming to be Jewish. These claims of "Jewishness" were essential to the motives for the creation of these groups, and are therefore self-supporting propoganda. The groups' legitimacy are denied by Judaism's Jewishly-originated denominations.

The name "Jews for Jesus" connotes that the group is Jewish, and this is the very point which deeply disturbs other Jewish groups. This "debate" about J4J's legitimacy is a highly essential point about the organization. --Eliyak T·C 01:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Justforasecond, I find it particularly amusing that you keep repeating "all jewish groups" even after this exact argument was proven false (see #"all" jewish groups and more bad citations). For the recordm, here is what the article says: "All mainstream Jewish groups" and "On several occasions leaders of the four major Jewish movements" - that's four out of four. Emphasis is mine. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

who is qualified to declare which four jewish groups are the *only* mainstream groups? mainstream is pov and can't be included. if you want to say "four jewish groups oppose j4j" that would be more legit. Justforasecond 05:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It is correct to say that the four Jewish groups descended from Rabbinic Judaism -- Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Reform Judaism, and Reconstructionist Judaism -- claim that a belief in Jesus is incompatible with Judaism. So, for that matter, does Karaite Judaism. These groups also disagree with Jews for Jesus' claim that it is a Jewish organization, and claim that Jews for Jesus is not a Jewish organization. Further, these four groups are considered the only groups that are within Judaism in the sense that the majority of their active support and financing does not come mainstream denominations of another religion. This much we can say consistent with WP:NPOV. --Shirahadasha 06:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes that is a legitimate NPOV statement, provided that it is referenced: Humus sapiens and Abscissa take note! MCohen 22:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

upgraded dispute tags

Since this article is being made more inacuurate, inflammatory, and deceptive, and since anyone who chooses to try to make his article more neutral and object are being reverted. I have upgraded the tages to totallydisputed and noncompliant. I am disapoinyted to see wikipedia administrators engaging in vandelism, when they should be upholding wikipedia policy.Lorem 00:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't seen them engage in vandalism really at all. I mean the integrity of the page doesn't seem to of been changed, just a whole bunch of the content. I'm not saying you have to agree with it, it's just that I don't see how it's vandalism. Homestarmy 00:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

One admin persists in placing the "Series on Christianity" template here, which plainly doesn't belong (see how there's no link from the template to this particular article?). That's vandalism. Justforasecond 01:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting interpretation of the word vandalism. Could you maybe find a policy that calls that vandalism? JoshuaZ 01:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:vandalism Justforasecond 06:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not vandalism. That Chritianity template belongs. The purpose it serves is to provide a series of quickly accessible useful links to major topics related to Christianity. The J4J article deals a lot with major christian themes e.g. Jesus as G-d, the return of Jesus, the worship of Jesus as an idol by Christians contrary to the first commandment, etc. Not Everyone knows everything about Christianity, so it is useful to have Christian links easily accessible when the majority of the article deals with the subject. - Abscissa 02:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I find this an strange argument comming from a <removed personal attack per WP:NPA. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)> You condem them for worshipping jesus as an idol, yet I have never met anyone who is with JFJ who has idols of Jesus, or worships Idols, yet most buddist that I know (and I know dozens of them, Jewish and Gentile) have idols of the buddah and alters to those idols, they pray to those idols and burn incence on the alters, how is that less idolatry? Can you see the contradiction in your logic? Also the and the article of Jews for Jesus does not deal with any of the issues you raise as justification for the template, it deals with the activities of a small non profit corporation from San Francisco that passes out literature on the streets and makes a few presentations in churches, MCohen 08:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

First, no Buddhists worship idols or even deities. Second, Zen Buddhists rarely or never own idols. Third, anyone is welcome to own or worship idols if they so wish, that is their choice, I did not condemn anyone for the practice. Finally, you totally ignored my argument about the Christianity template: ie. that it served a useful purpose by providing Christian links. - Abscissa 11:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

First, *many* buddhists have and worship idols ("buddha statues", often called just "buddhas"). Many buddhists also consider buddha to be a "god". It's probably not what you've read about Buddhism but it is a fact. Second, how relevant is Buddhist idolatry to this article? Justforasecond 14:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The Christianity category may belong, but this article is not a "part of the series on Christianity". Why not? A series is a list of articles, nicely listed out for you. Read the list of articles in the series...you'll see that Jews for Jesus is not in the list. ergo, J4J is not a part of the series. Justforasecond 06:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

the 'series' language is unfortunate, but it is clearly the case that articles not on the template list still merit use of the template. see Matthew the Evangelist and Thomas the Apostle, for example. drseudo (t) 06:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The series language is not unfortunate -- it was intended and is used all over the place on wiki. What was not intended is the abuse of the template. Justforasecond 14:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

what 'abuse'? oh wait, never mind, you're clearly trolling. as you were. drseudo (t) 18:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

if you look at the tone of the recent edits, especially in the beliefs section and the introduction. They are written in a persuasive tone rather than an informative tone; there is a clear intent to persuade people to view Jews for Jesus as an non jewish christian organization, and the text serve an an argument in support of that proposition. They also attempt to present the organization to being intentionally deceptive, and malicious, with no evidence of such intent, this is inexcusable in what should be an objective article. I see no possible way of interpreting those edits as being in good faith, and as much as I tried to give certain editors the benefit of the doubt, I now fully believe that they have an agenda of intentional violation of wikipedia policy, and thus the upgrade of the tags are warranted. I also am of the impression that when someone puts a dispute tag in an article, that it is not supposed to be removed until that persons concerns have been addressed, and resolved. Removing it, just because you don't agree with it, is an act of bad faith. MCohen 01:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Anon, you are wrong on all points. The org. is intentionally deceptive and malicious - see the refs. And you are trying to defend them a little too eagerly. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

First I have said absolutly nothin in defence of JFJ, so how can i eagerly be defending them. I'm just pointing out the blatent violation of wikipedia policy MCohen 08:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah right. The history is for all to see. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Anon the above HS post really supports your conclusions. This editor seems intent on promoting the POV that J4J is deceptive and malicious. Previously he called me a "crusading liar" and he also insists that "all" Jewish groups oppose J4J and other stuff not allowed on wiki. Certainly J4J doesn't think of itself as malicious. They think of themselves as good Jewish folks informing other Jewish folks about Jesus. Justforasecond 06:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Every time Justforasecond repeats the lie "all Jewish groups", his credibility hits a new low. The article says "All mainstream Jewish groups". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that (according to you) J4J is a group of friendly Jews who want to tell other Jews about Jesus is grounds for making that the content of the article? Should we reflect in the Hitler article that he was working hard for the betterment of people, the improvement of the human race, the elimination of undesirable racial characteristics, etc. because that's what he thought? You are seriously out to lunch if you think we can take at face value the claim made by any organisation or person about themselves.- Abscissa 10:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore it apparantly does not register how Judaism is not compatible with the belief in Jesus as a deity. You must have studied something about monotheism somewhere, in grade school or something, which would lead you to conclude that such a belief is fundamentally incompatible with the most basic and important principle of the religion. - Abscissa 10:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The tags were added because the user claimed the article was "inacuurate, inflammatory, and deceptive" (sic) and because "wikipedia administrators [were] engaging in vandelism" (sic). I suspect this was your claim MCohen. I removed the tags, however, as, you will notice that there are many valid references and nobody was vandalising the article. It is not POV that J4J is a christian organisation. It WOULD BE deceptive to claim otherwise. Further, your claims are becoming borderline trollish and offensive, suggesting that there are a few editors here with an agenda of deliberately trying to violate Wikipedia policies. - Abscissa 03:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

borderline "offensive"? hehe, never saw that "offensive" wasn't allowed on wiki. if you're offended by J4J that's unfortunate but we're not gonna rewrite the article.

however, personal attacks ("crusading liar"), pov edits, inserting misleading citations, inserting unverifiable information, vandalism, and wikistalking are all disallowed here. Justforasecond 06:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The "borderline offensive" part refers to the suggestion made by MCohen that there is a group of users that are deliberately have an agenda of violating wikipedia policies. - Abscissa 10:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Normally in disputes we divide content into sections, with one section providing the organization's own POV (explicitly labeled as such) and another section providing critical POVs (explicitly labeled as such) --Shirahadasha 06:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

One really big thing I notice about the article in general is that almost all of the references are from either critical websites or JfJ itself, which pretty much means the critical references get center stage. Way I see it, if references from the other side get located and used, it might balance this all out. Also, Abscissa, since you're now basically using an analogy concerning Hitler to describe JfJ's practices, does this mean I can assume that all the times you kept saying "Elimination of Jews" you meant it in the most hateful way possible? Because seriously, that's getting downright annoying, and i'd sure like to assume you don't mean what that sounds like, but when I first saw you using all this "Eliminate the Jews" stuff, the first thing that I thought of was the Holocaust, and the second thing I thought of was a game of laser tag, and i'd really rather hope you didn't mean the first thing. Homestarmy 13:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not think they are trying to set up concentration camps, don't be outrageous. I do think they are trying to get every single Jew on earth to accept Jesus as saviour and Messiah and G-d, hence, make them Christian, ergo, eliminate the Jews. I do not normally invoke Hitler but that is near the level of outrageous offensiveness of these J4J people. - Abscissa 14:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The use of the term ergo, assumes that the conclusion follows logically from the premise, which in this case it does not. If one considers belief in Jesus to be a completion of there Judaism, and that having that belief makes them MORE Jewish, not less (which is the belief of the all missionaries of Jews for Jesus) then being motivated to get Jews to believe, could not be a motivation to eliminate Jews, but rather a motivation to make Jews more Jewish. What I see you and Humus sapiens, repeatedly asserting, is that they don't really believe that, that its only a pretense and there is absolutly no evidence that is the case, and no merit to the claim. Secondly you make the claim that belief in Jesus makes you a Christian, While Jews for Jesus identify as Christians, there is the Messianic Judaism Movement, which does not identify with Christianity and is in many cases as hostile to Chrisianity as you are. There are also Many Hindus, Moslems and Buddists who believe in Jesus, but in no way identify with Christtianity MCohen 15:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Absicca, a tiny group of folks passing out pamphlets isn't really comparable to a world leader who organizes a genocide. Justforasecond 15:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

To be near Hitler's level, the JfJ people would have to be clearly having a deep-seated personal hatred for Jews, and so far, I see no evidence the JfJ people really believe their doing anything harmful to Jews at all. If Hitler had started his little campaign and he didn't believe he was actually harming the Jews, he would of changed it until he knew that he was harming them. Homestarmy 15:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not think they have deep-seeded personal hatred, I think they have deep-seeded personal convictions, a la Hitler. Once again: I did not ever, ever, ever... I NEVER suggested J4J was organising a genocide. I NEVER EVER CLAIMED THAT. I cannot believe you even say that, do you know how insensitive and offensive that is? I made the following comparisons: If there were a group called "Christians against Jesus" that it would be reprehensible and offensive, and that the Hitler article should not be written from Hitler's POV, i.e. that he was working for the betterment of the human race. Do you want that the entire article about J4J should be "Jews for Jesus is a tiny group of nice Jews who pass out pamphlets?" That is your idea of NPOV? - Abscissa 15:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No, in fact that would be is a POV article, unless you eliminate the word "nice" MCohen 15:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know many ways to interpret "Eliminate the Jews" beyond Holocaust-type events or a dodgeball/laser tag/whatever game between JfJ and a "Mainstream Jewish team". The second is silly, and the first certainly looks more and more likely the more you invoke Hitler's name. Now, if you said "Eliminate Judaism" that would be very different, because you can eliminate a religion without "Eliminating" the people who believe it, but no, you keep saying "Eliminate the Jews" and "Their offensiveness is close to Hitler's". And my point on the "Christians against Jesus" sort of thing is that the way people love to write Wikipedia, is that if an article on such a group was written, people would do whatever they can to read NPOV to mean "We can't say they aren't Christian, that would be POV pushing!!11111!!!". And my view of what this article should probably read like is hopefully have more content having to do with the actual organization, rather than most of it being just generalizations by various sources on how "ordinary" much of it is as religioustolerance.com puts it and how "offensive" and "intolerant" and "non-ecunumenical" or whatever it is. It doesn't say too much on what the actual organization is, just how much people hate it for general reasons. Homestarmy 15:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Latest round of revisions

The introduction now reads:

Jews for Jesus is a Christian [1] [2] Evangelical [3] organization based in the United States with the goal of Jewish people as to the divinity of Jesus.

This is not an English sentence, so I am reverting the last edit on that basis alone. Other than that, the edits look okay, with the exception of the bizarre insertion of 'discriminatory.' drseudo (t) 18:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"A publication from Jews for Jesus denies this"

The article had this statement in it:

A publication from Jews for Jesus denies this, and their continuing denial has led many Jewish and Christian groups to call its practices "deceptive". (See Critical responses)

The publication in question doesn't "deny this"; in fact, it doesn't even address the issue, which is whether a belief that Jesus is the Messiah and God is compatible with Judaism. Rather, it insists that belief in Jesus doesn't remove Jewish ethnicity. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmph, "Jewish" could still mean religious too, even though they only discuss the ethnic identity part.... Homestarmy 01:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

FTA: Rather than destroying our ethnic identity, faith in Y'shua frees us from the confines of rabbinic tradition so that we can become the kind of scriptural Jews God wants all of us to be. They are themselves conceding in their thesis that "rabbinic tradition" does not allow a belief in "Y'shua". Their "ethnic idenity" argument is deceptive.- Abscissa 01:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, it doesn't matter whether it's deceptive or not, they apparently think it anyway and that's not an excuse to just delete their opinion.

And secondly, how about this article, [12] it definently concerns Judaism religiously, was written by Rosen himself, and basically tries to take to task the reasons why "Judaism is incompatible with Christianity" or more specifically, the belief that Jesus sacrificed Himself for our sins or was God. It even says that according to the Judaic status-quo, "In order to be authentically Jewish, it is said, one must renounce Jesus and avoid Christians and Christianity." and then goes on to claim that "The only reason there is seeming consensus and unanimity is because any Jew who discovers, believes and says that Jesus is the promised Messiah is made an outcast and regarded as a non-Jew". I'd say this certainly has something important to do with the idea that JfJ's mission is "incompatible" with Judaism in terms of who's POV on the issue is what. Homestarmy 01:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Does Rosen make the claim there that worshipping Jesus is compatible with Judaism? If so, in where? I couldn't see it. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if he doesn't, I don't see how it matters, the intro only says that JfJ seeks to make Jews "accept Jesus as the Messiah and God", doesn't say anything about worship. Of course, that should logically follow if JfJ is Christian.....but anyway, he calls into question the idea that it is incompatible based on how the notion of compatability has been developed anyway, which probably warrents a whole new kind of sentence anyway. Homestarmy 01:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

So what is it exactly that he's claiming? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears he is trying to argue that the real cause of Jews being able to say that JfJ's beliefs are incompatible with Judaism isn't through some legitimate gathering of consensus, but rather because anyone who believes in what JfJ is advocating is immedietly thrown out of the synagogue or whatever, and therefore, they can claim consensus by simply kicking out anyone who doesn't agree. He goes much more in depth though, arguing something about how Judaism's official scripts of law are self-contradictory in many places and open to interpretation, and I guess he goes into some history thing, but I think the main point is that he argues that the idea of JfJ's beliefs being "incompatible" with Judaism was reached through rather questionable means. Homestarmy 02:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

So, he doesn't dispute that Judaism says worship of Jesus is incompatible with Judaism, he just doesn't think Judaism should believe that. That's how I read it too. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well not exactly, he's trying to make the point that he thinks its through questionable means, which I think would warrent a sentence in the intro of its own. Homestarmy 02:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, so what would "legitimate" means for Judaism making these decisions be? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, i'm not entirely certain. I'm not saying I agree compleatly with the guy, (Technically speaking, if he is leaving certain parts of the story out, I can see a way in which Judaism's defense might be valid) i'm just saying it looks important to the relationship between JfJ and the people who say it's "incompatible". Homestarmy 02:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a straw man argument, which is why his essay is devoid of content. It is somewhat like asking, "Can you be a Canadian and a Muslim?" or "Can you be black and a Buddhist?" -- then celebrating your own argument when you conclude that the answer is, obviously, yes, since Islam and Buddhism have nothing to do with being Canadian or black. Then to suggest that: "Buddhists need to stop whining about blacks and attacking us" and "Canadians need to stop whining about Muslims and attacking us" ... that is the exact pattern his argument takes. - Abscissa 08:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Irregardless of how strong his defense is, it is nonetheless apparently the core of how they consider the "Is not compatible" argument". Homestarmy 15:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not getting what his "argument" is; it really seems to be "yes, Judaism says this, but I don't agree with the way Judaism made that decision". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's more along the lines of "The leaders of Judaism say this, and kick out anyone who doesn't agree to make a false consensus of what Judaism is". Homestarmy 16:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's a strange argument, don't you think? The leaders of every group enforce membership rules. Anyway, the cited sources show that this is a very broadly held position among all Jews, not just Jewish leadership. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The argument is extremely simple. p1. Judaism is both a religion and an ethinicity. p2. We are ethnic Jews who follow "Y'shua". c. We are Jews, who believe in Jesus. - Abscissa 01:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not the entirety of this article. Whether or not it's strange is compleatly irrelevant, they make the argument, apparently proceed by it, and not mentioning it because it might be weird or incompleate doesn't mean that it isn't notable. Homestarmy 02:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Abrahamic religions

This is regarding this edit: [13]. I don't think this sentence belongs in the intro (or anywhere in this particular article, for that matter). The article talks about irreconcilable differences and an unbridgeable schism. Perhaps we could include Jewish history and History of Christianity as see also. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree; it seems to have nothing to do with the topic or the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Jackie Mason lawsuit

I've significantly trimmed the following statement:

Jews for Jesus, however, has responded on their website to the allegations, stating that "We hope once you read it [the pamphlet] you will agree that we treat Mr. Mason respectfully and that we in no way say that he is a follower of Jesus." and attempts to explain that the pamphlet does not proclaim Mason to be a Christian at all.

The purpose of the litigation section, as far as I can tell, is to list and briefly describe the nature of various legal actions related to JFJ; it is NOT a format to hash out the allegations on behalf of the parties involved. I think noting that JFJ has responded, and referencing that response, is enough for the purposes of this section.Darthmix 18:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, the entire point of mentioning anyone in the first place is to hash out the allegations people are making, so yes, it is indeed a place to hash out allegations. If Mason's claim is described, (accompanied by the assertive "He is, in fact, a Jew") then not describing JfJ's response looks one-sided. Homestarmy 19:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No. The point of mentioning the lawsuit is NOT to hash out the arguments surrounding the allegations. Noting the allegations of the plaintiff is tantamount to describing the lawsuit; I can't imagine describing the lawsuit without explaining that. Note that when JFJ sues Google, or LAX, we don't devote any space to the defendants' counter-arguments, because this article isn't the format to do that.Darthmix 19:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Then why does it say that Mason isn't a Christian and that he think JfJ has mis-represented him, that is his allegation after all and the second thing is supporting it. Besides, there doesn't need to be a format to respond, just do it, and anyone is free to add in the arguments of Google or LAX. Homestarmy 21:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I included that because I couldn't see any other way to explain what the lawsuit was about. If the sentence "In fact, Mason is a member of the Jewish faithand not associated with JFJ" is what's bothering you, and you can cut it or trim it in a way that the entry still makes sense, then I'm fine with that. I just think the litigation section is essentially meant to be a list of the different cases with brief explanation of what they're about; it's not meant to be a forum for us to present 'either' sides specific arguments about those allegations. Linking to JFJ's response, which I'm okay with, is more than we do for the defendents in any of the other cases; if we allow both sides to respond to each other's arguments in each case, this article could go on forever.Darthmix 21:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, we only have to have a single sentence or two to show the rebuttle. Homestarmy 02:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

One God and One God Only

Surely somewhere we should mention that this statement is agreed with by Christians, and also by Jews for Jesus, although other Jews apparrently don't consider their interpretation acceptable. DJ Clayworth 18:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure in what context you would want to say that, or what exactly it would be adding to the article. Can you explain? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The point being that JFJ would say that they do believe in only one God, but that other Jews think they don't. DJ Clayworth 20:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's a fundamental difference between Judaism and Christianity; Judaism says you can only worship one God, Christianity (including J4J) says you must worship a Trinity. Doesn't the lead cover that? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it just says "This position is Christian and is incompatible with Judaism", the body is where the article tries to explain. (A bit too succintly in my opinion). Homestarmy 21:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Phrase in the Lead

This phrase seems to put wikipedia in the position of taking sides in this dispute: "a Christian belief which is incompatible with Judaism." While there is wide agreement with the phrase within mainstream Jewish traditions, JfJ and many Christians believe it to be fully compatible with Judaism (or at least the religion of the ancient Hebrews).

This is similar to the problem that Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witnesses tradition provide for Christianity. Most Christians find their theology totally incompatible with Christianity, yet both traditions very vigorously assert that they are Christian. Since Wikipedia says that anyone who calls themself a Christian is to be considered a Christian, should not we use the standard that anyone who calls himself a Jew should be considered a Jew here?

Can we find a way to say this that doesn't put wikipedia in the position of making a religious value judgment, something that says most Jews dispute that this is compatible with Judaism? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The lead quotes reliable sources on the subject. Judaism gets to decide what Jewish beliefs are, not Christianity. The lead of the Christianity article describes the faith as "monotheistic", even though, according to Islam and Judaism, Christianity is actually tri-theistic. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

So, does this mean we can put in the Mormonism a phrase like, "Mormonism is not a Christian religion." I can cite hundreds of reliable Christian sources to that effect. I expect it would not be well received. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The article states that belief that Jesus is a Messiah and God is incompatible with Judaism - this is stating Judaism's belief, and Judaism is unanimous on this point. Christianity is a much bigger and broader faith, and incorporates a wider set of views. You haven't responded to the issue about monotheism. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there is an exact parallel. Wikipedia includes Mormonism in all its lists of things 'Christian', essentially solely on the grounds that Mormon self-identify as Christian. A few other denominations agree, but not many. JFJ self-identifies as Jewish, and certainly some other Jews will agree. To take one position in one case and the other in this is surely hypocritical. For Wikipedia to espouse the view that they are not is taking a point of view. DJ Clayworth 20:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

To begin with, J4J, unlike Mormonism, is not a denomination. Second, what "some Jews" believe is meaningless; "some Jews" believe almost anything, including "some Jews" who believe in Islam, Mormonism, Hinduism, Buddhism, atheism, and everything else you can imagine. Third, Wikipedia quotes reliable sources about Judaism's beliefs, and Christianity's take on Judaism isn't a particularly reliable source on what Judaism believes. And finally, you still haven't responded on the monotheism issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Further to this we should include this article in Category:Judaism. DJ Clayworth 20:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Judaism decides what Judaism is. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the argument is the same. Christianity gets to decide what Christianity is, yet Wikipedia espouses the view that Mormonism is Christian, despite the fact that a huge majority of Christians do not consider them so. Besides, who exactly is this 'Judaism' of which we speak. Are you telling me that every single Jew in the world doesn't consider JFJ Jewish? DJ Clayworth 20:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've already been over the "what Jews believe" issue; Jews believe everything and nothing. On the other hand, what Judaism says on this is clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What I just wrote in the article, by the way, sums up the situation in a neutral way. JFJ says one thing, other Jews say something else, Wikipedia doesn't have a position on who is right. DJ Clayworth 20:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has no business claiming that belief in Jesus as the Messiah is incompatible with Judaism; Judaism is NOT unanimous on this point, and the fact that Jews for Jesus exists is all that's needed to prove that. These people claim to be Jews, and they accept Jesus as their savior. They're in the extreme minority, so it's fine if the article says "Most Jewish authorities feel this belief is incompatible with Judaism" or something like that. But it's not our place to say that these people represent Judaism while these others do not.Darthmix 20:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually Judaism is unanimous on this point, as the reliable sources quoted in the article itself says. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Note the difference between fact an opinion. Those "reliable sources" only relate to opinions about what Judaism is, and do not represent "facts" about what Judaism is. If Jews get to decide what Judaism is, then Jews for Jesus have to be included in that process, even if they're included as the minority.Darthmix 20:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." We quote reliable opinions on Wikipedia. And Christian opinions aren't reliable when it comes to the beliefs of Judaism. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, but the only thing those sources verify is that many Jews believe that such and such is incompatible with Judaism - so the fact that they believe that can be asserted, but the belief itself cannot. Because the belief represents an opinion, and it is not universally held; Jews for Jesus hold the opposite opinion.

No, Christians don't get to determine what Judaism is; Jews do. But Jews for Jesus claim to be Jews as well as Christians; according to them, Judaism and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. For us to say that otherwise represents OUR belief that Christianity and Judaism ARE mutually exclusive, and it's not our business to do that. We can cite others who believe this, but we can't assert it ourselves.

Do you see how your argument is circular? Jews for Jesus aren't Jewish, because Jews say so... what Jews for Jesus says doesn't count, because they're not Jewish... and so on.Darthmix 20:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd argue that Judaism also incorporates a wide range of views. Are you saying that Jews get to define what Judaism is, but Christians do not get to define what Christianity is?

My understanding is that wikipedia allows religious traditions to self-define. So that, as much as I strongly reject the proposition that Mormons are Christians, in wikipedia, we allow them to define themselves in this way. So, for your example, it is in keeping with policy to allow the Christianity article to describe Christianity as monotheistic, the Judaism article to say Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah, the Mormonism article to claim Mormons are Christians, and the Jews for Jesus article to say they believe that Jesus is the Messiah and to believe such makes them more Jewish than ever. (or something to that effect).

I also have no problem with saying here that most of Judaism believes this believe incompatible with being a Jew. I just get a little uneasy with stating point blank that it is incompatible in an article on a group whose whole self-image is built on their viewing themselves as Jews. I'd react the same way to a disclaimer of this sort put on any LDS page. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Judaism, as a religion, drew a red line saying that it is incompatible with the divinity of Jesus. Why should WP be used as a medium for a group who uses subterfuge and deception to cross/blur this line? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The same can be said of Christianity drawing a red line (the Nicene Creed) which Mormonism crosses, and which, in the view of Christians, uses deceptive means to keep people from learning that fact. So, are you all saying I can and should insert language that says "Mormon theology is incompatible with Christian doctrine?" It would be no problem to find reliable sources that say that. The Mormons, however, would protest loudly against such a characterization. Jews for Jesus will argue that there is no deception here. They believe they are Jews that believe Jesus is the Messiah and far from being a lie, it is the most profound truth. The question here is whether religious groups should be allowed to self-define on Wikipedia or not. My understanding is that they are allowed to self-define, no matter what you think of the JfJ claims or I think of the LDS claims.

Please note I did not even suggest "a Christian belief which is incompatible with Judaism" but that we add a phrase that indicates it to be Judaism's opinion. It is, is it not? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 00:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Judaism is a belief system. JFJ are not in the position to decide/define/redefine it, especially since they are strongly opposed by commonly accepted Judaic authorities who maintain that JFJ belong to another religion, in other words, a different belief system. See WP:NPOV#Undue weight. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how that matters, Christianity is a belief system too, and Wikipedia certainly allows any number of groups to claim that they've re-defined it as many times as they please, and also notes that most Christians do not accept these re-definitions. Homestarmy 02:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be fine for knowledgable parties to add a section to the Mormonism article citing reliable sources that various Christian groups believe Mormonism is not a form of Christianity and dispute its claim to be one. The fact that one article may be incomplete or inappropriately POV is no reason for another to be so. My personal view is that we should say something like "All the historical Jewish groups, including Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Reform Judaism, and Reconstructionist Judaism, and Kairaite Judaism, hold that belief in the divinity of Jesus is not compatible with Judaism". I believe it would also be appropriate to mention that the majority of J4J's funding comes from fund-raising among Christian churches with no claims or pretense to a relationship with Judaism, and that its leadership consists of ordained ministers whose ordination occurred in Christian seminaries with no claims or pretense to a relationship with Judaism --Shirahadasha 19:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. I could set up a Mantanmoreland Church of Torah and Jesus tomorrow, but that wouldn't make it a Jewish organization. J4J does not call itself a Jewish organization, but an organization of Jews. Immense difference. It is a Christian organization of people of Jewish origin. Remember the word "Jesus" in title. Let's not treat the word "Christian" as an obscenity, people. I can see why Jewish people would resent this organization but I cannot see why, and do not believe, J4J would object to the Christian label.--Mantanmoreland 20:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the emphasis in this section is more about the "Is incompatible with Judaism, nuff said" phrase rather than the "Is a Christian...."part. Homestarmy 20:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

My first edit ever

This page was horribly POV; I am an atheist and have no vested interest in either doctrine (Christianity or Judaism); it was objectively obvious that this article was rhetorically skewed towards those who claim Judaism and a belief in a divine Christ are incompatible. And that is, of course, begging the question. I deleted the Christianity tag for that reason, cleaned up some of the more egregious dogmatic attacks, and removed "citations" which referred to clearly prejudiced sites.

Whether or not Judaism is compatible with a belief in Christ is not a syntactic question with an unambiguous answer. And indeed, it's irrelevant to this page, which should be only an empirical discussion of this specific religious group. It suffices to say something like: 'Jews for Jesus believe one can be both Jewish and believe in a divine Christ; most Jewish groups disagree'.ParadoxTom 20:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing properly sourced information from the article, and please read WP:NPOV. NPOV means you quote various authoritative sources on a position, not that you find some mythical "neutral" middle ground. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've restored Jayjg's post above that I see was deleted. ParadoxTom, it doesn't matter what your personal beliefs are (atheist, Jew, Christian). As editors, we merely present extant viewpoints from reliable sources. Please don't delete sourced material. Thanks. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

MPerel, those "references" are not properly sourced. They do not represent an empirically accurate viewpoint, but instead seek to advance a prejudiced ideology. This article should not be a theological discussion but an empirical description of JfJParadoxTom 01:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I at least think that the Christianity tag is okay because JFJ doesn't deny being a Christian organization; their status as one is not among the (many) points of controversey in this article. Whether or not they are also a Jewish organization is a more complicated question, but they definitely belong to the category of Christianity.Darthmix 21:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the Christianity template is not the same as the "Christianity" category at the bottom, the template is supposed to be on articles which are, simply put, fairly important and/or instrumental to Christianity and the development of Christianity. Jews for Jesus has not influenced Christianity as a whole really much at all, and if an encyclopedia had a section on Christianity but did not mention Jews for Jesus, the encyclopedia would not be insufficiently broad. If, as some editors propose, that any organization that claims to be Christian should have the template, I can think of several law organizations in the U.S., (Alliance Defense Fund, ACLJ, Thomas More Law center, Trinity Broadcasting Network (if I spelled all that right)) and a very long list of persons, John Hagee who runs Cornerstone ministries, D. James Kennedy who founded the Center for Reclaiming America and Knox theological seimnary, The Way of the Master which is the evangelistic program which I basically learned how to evangelize good from, and an increadible list of other articles which should have the Christianity template spammed on them like mad. This is not how the Christianity template has been used in the past, and there is absolutly no reason to use it here that makes sense now that the intro says "This position is Christianity, considered incompatible with Judaism". Homestarmy 21:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I guess that seems fair with regard to the tag. But the article should continue to indentify JFJ as a Christian Evangelical oganization, since that point isn't really in dispute.Darthmix 22:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it

Twenty seconds after the thoughtful changes I had spent thirty minutes on were included, someone apparently simply repasted the original, POV text. Is this the typical modus operandi on Wikipedia? Is there any point to making contributions? Again, this was my first edit, and I must say I'm slightly confused. I would appreciate an e-mail addressing whether or not "contributing" here is worth my time.

MPerel asked why the "sourced material" was removed: it was removed because (1) it was factually incorrect, and (2) it was being used as a POV instantiation of a NPOV remark.

It's not the typical method of editing, but this article is currently in a rather heated dispute, and therefore, sudden changes (The vast majority of which were deletions) are bound to cause people to revert you. With situations like this, you've really gotta do a step by step thing. Homestarmy 21:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Got it; done.ParadoxTom 01:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor changes

Removed the 'Christianity' label; that is begging the quesion as an issue of subjective interpretation. Some would consider JfJ a Christian organziation; others would not--and there are no objective decision criteria because the predicate 'is Christian' is not testable as an empirical matter. Consequently, any assignation is by definition POV.

Second, the opening statement was wildly POV, "sourced" by reference to clearly POV sites. That a website exists that claims JfJ is Christian does not make it so, just as the existence of a website that claims JfJ is Jewish does not make it so. NPOV requires an unprejudiced description.ParadoxTom 01:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

ParadoxTom, you are a new user. You seem to misunderstand how WP works. I suggest you get familiar with our policies and guidelines, in particular WP:NOR and WP:RS. Thx. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Those have been read and complied with. It is POV for you to include material referenced from websites containing prejudicial information that happen to align with your personal religious views. I have no vested interest in either Christianity or Judaism and seek only an honest, NPOV characterization of JfJ for peoples' informational purposes.ParadoxTom 01:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about your religious views and you do not know and should not attack what you perceive as others' personal beliefs. You already broke WP:3RR, please refrain from WP:NPA. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we know: clearly, you only care about your own religious views. The point is that this is not the forum to field them. This is supposed to be a dispassionate article about the empirical status of Jews for Jesus--not your own assessment of whether or not they qualify as 'Christian'ParadoxTom 01:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

On the topic, what "empirical matter" are you talking about? Who, other than you, questions that they are Christian evangelicals? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, me, for example: presumably them as well. The point is that with semantic predicates like 'is a Christian', the assignation of atomic entities--viz. 'Jews for Jesus' is an ultimately subjective matter. It could be discussed elsewhere, and I might very well end up agreeing with you that JfJ are evangelical Christians, but that's not a prima facie fact which should be featured in an encyclopedia.ParadoxTom 01:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

See WP:NOR and check the refs listed in the article. Please assume good faith towards others and do not abuse GF for yourself. It goes only so far. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR is the entire point. This article needs to be factual and dispassionate. I do not doubt your motives; only your execution. It is not in good faith to revert an article which I worked hard to make NPOV to fit your own personal beliefs.ParadoxTom 01:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You do not know nor should you attack personal beliefs of others. I strongly advise you to stop ad hominem. On your "hard work", Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability [14] calls them both "Christian" and "evangelists". They call them also "Jewish" but that's not up to ECFA to decide. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly the point. It would be POV of me to state that they are a Jewish organization simply because an entity exists that believes so. And that citation is appropriate because the sentence merely states a factual claim about JfJ's finances; nothing about their theology. EFCA is indisputibly correct about JfJ's financial status. They are very likely wrong about JfJ's doctrinal status.ParadoxTom 02:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL. What do you expect, a certificate from the Pope? You worked hard to remove reliable sources, that is a no-no. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What is "LOL"? I do not understand the Papal reference, also. The sources I removed were grossly unreliable, grossly POV. Again, personal theological commentary has no place here.ParadoxTom 02:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It is very true that there is absolutely a certain amount of subjectivity in many elements of religion. For example, many Jews choose to follow Kosher. Or some Muslims may be twelvers, others believe in only seven prophets. None of them is "Right" or "wrong". However, other elements contradict the most basic tenents of the religon. No matter who claims it, or why, a logical contradiction creates an impossibility. I **cannot** be a Christian, for e.g., and deny that Jesus ever existed, and that there is no such person as Jesus, etc. Even if some website agrees with me... No matter that these should be my subjective beliefs. - Abscissa 02:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It's true, you can't claim it and be a Christian, but some Unitarian Universalists I think believe that and claim to be Christian, and you wouldn't see Wikipedia say "They aren't Christian" most likely. (Unless it was a very out of the way article and we got to it before the NPOV squad did). Homestarmy 02:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I only know about UU what I just read (and I specialised in philosophy and claim to know a lot about religion) but they do not seem to be Christians. Notwithstanding we should stay on topic-- "UU" cannot be linked to the council of Nicea in the same way, for e.g., that orthodox Judaism can be linked to Judaism. - Abscissa 02:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What ParadoxTom called "Minor changes" is still needs to be reverted: he removed a lot of WP:RS. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted. This is a lovely organization -- I have attended its services -- but it is a Christian one, a fact somewhat submerged in the article. I do believe Monsignor John M. Oesterreicher wrote an article on evangelicals, including this org, that should be referenced in this article if it is not already. I shall try to track it down. Actually I was thinking of something else. However, I added a couple of paragraphs on the Catholic Church's position on the issue of prosletyzing aimed at Jews, as it seems germane and represents a Christian view different than the one taken by J4J.--Mantanmoreland 03:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Adios

Well, I came into Wikipedia with high hopes; they have been dashed. This site is not a admirable place for the free exchange of information, but a forum for bigoted, unfair, prejudiced polemic. Instead of a factual article about an empirical matter, JfJ has descended into vacuous blather about whose religion is right. I spend an hour working on an article in a good-faith, objective effort to make it fair, readable, and informative, and since my description is not in perfect accord with some people's personal religious views, you revert it in an instant and all my work is lost.

So, bye: Encyclopedia Britannica is right and Wikipedia is fatally flawed because it has no standards. What a waste of time this site is.ParadoxTom 03:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You've only been editing one article over an increadibly controversial subject, it's hardly exibitive of all of Wikipedia. Homestarmy 02:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Justforasecond is right

The Christian template shouldn't be here. The blatant contradictions in the first 2 references need to be fixed. Until then the entire article loses its credence. In the first sentence, the first 2 references completely contradict each other:

Jews for Jesus is a Christian evangelical organization.

ref 1 says:
One of the largest organizations within Messianic Judaism is Jews for Jesus.

ref 2 says:
Who are the Jews for Jesus? Jews for Jesus is an evangelical Christian organization with approximately 100 employees.

You can't have it both ways. I have placed a {{Contradict}} on the page. And because of this insane, biased, childish nonsense, you have gotten a good editor blocked for 48 hours for trying to do the right thing for the encyclopedia. It looks like you drove another editor (ParadoxTom) away, too. Whiskey Rebellion 04:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at the Messianic Judaism article.

Messianic Judaism is a relatively new term, coined to help separate the practices of its followers from those of common Christianity as a whole, and in order to more closely align its faith with that of biblical and historical Judaism. Adherents contend that their faith was and still is Jewish, but others vehemently deny support for such a definition. Most sects of modern Judaism, and the State of Israel do not recognize Messianic Judaism as a legitimate branch of Judaism

Although there were several "Messianic synagogues"—traditional Synagogues whose rabbis became Believers and thus taught about Yeshua from their bimah (see the case of Rabbi Isaac Lichtenstein)—in the late 1800s with little or no connection to it, the Messianic Judaism of today grew out of Hebrew-Christian movement 1800's.

The International Hebrew-Christian Alliance (IHCA) changed its name to the International Messianic Jewish Alliance. Similarly, the Hebrew Chirstian Alliance of America changed its name to the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America (in 1975). The reason for this change was to make people (especially nonreligious Jews) believe, as you do, that the movement is Jewish. Jews for Jesus is an organization within Messianic "Judaism." See this reference (provided in the Jews for Jesus article): [15] Does this mean that the Christianity template belongs here? Beats me. But it might. --Eliyak T·C 04:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no contradiction here. "Messianic Judaism" is mainly viewed as Christian, as the article on it points out. There is no branch of Judaism called "Messianic Judaism" except to the tiny fringe of people who embrace this movement. To put this in the Jewish category gives undue weight. The very fact we're having this discussion is an example of the disadvantages Jews have from being disorganized and not having a Pope.--Mantanmoreland 04:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

PS: It was correct to remove the contradict tag but there are still too many.--Mantanmoreland 04:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

When did I say that I thought Jews for Jesus was Jewish? I don't know what the heck it is and the article doesn't seem to either. The whole thing is fundamentally screwy to me. (Apologies if I offended any Jews for Jesus.) Whiskey Rebellion 05:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

WR, it's unfortunate that Jfas got blocked over a misunderstanding (in this case, the correct application of templates that have 'Part of a series' in them). But his blocking has to do with WP:3RR violations, not with any 'insane, biased, childish nonsense' that may have occurred. WP:COOL may also be relevant here. drseudo (t) 05:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Drseudo, I have seen articles on the wiki with so many reverts in one day from one editor, it is mind boggling to me how WP:3RR is even a policy, never mind actually using it to block someone. The 3RR is an excuse to block -- not a reason. Sorry. On the other hand, consistency would be a good thing. Whiskey Rebellion 05:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I know you're new here, but you should still know that scattershot enforcement of a policy does not vitiate the policy itself. Jfas had every opportunity to hash out his concerns re {{christianity}} on this talk page but did not. Instead, he violated 3RR and was blocked. The end. drseudo (t) 05:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

He commented about it 5X here. Whiskey Rebellion 05:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he did comment here. The discussion can be summarized thusly:

JFAS: The 'Part of a series on Christianity' template is inappropriate since this article isn't part of the series.

Me: Actually, just because an article isn't linked in the template doesn't mean that it can't include the template. See examples.

JFAS: No, it's vandalism.

Me: ??

I don't know how else I can phrase it. {{christianity}} is totally noncontroversial elsewhere; I did my best to convince Jfas of this, to no avail. If he feels so strongly about it, he should have continued to engage other editors on this talk page, rather than violating 3RR and accusing other editors of vandalizing the article. No one forced him to do so. drseudo (t) 06:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason the template isn't controversial elsewhere is probably because it belongs on articles elsewhere. Jews for Jesus is not a very notable part of Christianity, it has not influenced its history or spawned any new denominations, and if any other encyclopedia had a "Series of articles on Christianity" and didn't include JfJ, how could someone honestly consider it incompleate? The introduction already calls them Christian, much to the appeasment of many editors here, the template is just overkill for the sake of overkill. If somebody reads the intro and sees that the article calls themselves Christian and doesn't trust Wikipedia, will the template off to the right change their mind? And, conversly, if a person does trust Wikipedia, the template is pointless; they would already think of JfJ as Christian. Whether people seek to use it to honestly link an article which is important in Christianity or to try to slam the point home that it's Christian, this template is pointless on this article. And think about it, there are, what, 100 employees in this entire organization? What's the level for inclusion, a group of, say, more than 50 Christians gets the Christianity template? Because I can think of a long list of organizations, especially in America, that need this template spammed on them if true, a task which would probably take hours due to the huge amount of groups which are in [[Category:Christianity]]. Homestarmy 12:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

But the J4J's aim is to persuade Jews to accept Jesus. Doesn't that per se make it Christian? The group itself does not say it isn't Christian, merely that it adopts Jewish rituals and cherishes the Jewish heritage of its members. It uses the term "Jews" for Jesus in the sense that its members have a Jewish ethnic heritage while at the same time coming to Jesus. Nothing wrong with that. Advocates of Jewish-Christian reconciliation (such as Sister Rose Thering) have advocated for years that Christians embrace Jewish traditions and holidays. The difference is that advocates of Jewish-Christian reconciliation in the Church have acknowledged that missionary work is offensive to Jews. J4J as a missionary organization disagrees with that view, as do many in the Church too I might add. Surely there is no harm in an organization that embraces Jewish values, but neither is there harm in stating objectively that this organization is Christian. I can't see J4J objecting to such a tag, though I imagine the world won't implode if it is omitted.--Mantanmoreland 14:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

But the Christianity template isn't supposed to be used on articles which are merely "about Christianity", that's what Category:Christianity and I assume the introduction is for. Look in the Category:Christianity articles and tell me whether each and every article there concerning an organization has the Christianity template on it. (And no, adding the template as you check them doesn't count :) ). Of course JfJ is Christian, whether it claims to be Jewish as well is up in the air, but the point is that the template isn't needed. Homestarmy 15:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I was about to say "J4J is a Christian movement and thus belongs in the template," but I see that "movement" is defined narrowly in the template, so I see your point. However, I don't believe putting a template on an article means that it must fall withink the categories contained in the template.--Mantanmoreland 15:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

So let me ask, then: is it your view that this template is a finger in the eye of J4J? It strikes me as a compliment.--Mantanmoreland 15:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

My view is that it doesn't belong here because articles which have the template are ordinarily very important or at least relatively to Christianity or the development of Christianity, such as denomination articles, apostles, large movements in history, etc. etc., it seems to me very likely that some editors intend it to be a poke in their eye, but as i've said, if that's their goal, it doesn't work very well. Of course, that still doesn't change that it's not a proper use of the template.... Homestarmy 15:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Also this article belongs in Category:Christian evangelicalism, wouldn't you say? Apart from this template matter.--Mantanmoreland 16:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why anyone wouldn't want it in that category, unless it's specially defined or something, "evangelicalism" is a bit of an American neologism. (Of course, JfJ works in the U.S., so I guess that wouldn't matter heh.) Homestarmy 18:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Tags

Could the anon IP <removed personal info. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)> please specify concisely:

• Which statements in the article are factually inaccurate
• Why this article does not belong in Wikipedia
• What is the "point of view" that is neglected?
• What unsuitable material the article contains
• What unverifiable material the article contains
• What original research the article contains

Since he decided to add these tags. - Abscissa 07:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No i didn't add these tags, I reverted there removal because the issues that the people who originally added the have not been addressed, if you read the whole discussion you will find the answers to all the questions you jut asked. MCohen 19:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

{{TotallyDisputed}} covers it all, so I took the liberty to remove the rest. Still it needs to be justified. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

as do all of you POV edit, I agree that totally disputed covers most of what peole are concered with. however having a "rainbow of tags" serves the purpose of making it clear that this is a problematic aricle that should not be considered a valid source of information in its present form MCohen 19:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There is, however, something to be said for being concise. Having three or so templates saying the same thing over and over isn't helpful. Homestarmy 20:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course, My comment was a sarcastic response to Humus Sapiens insistence in using the "Series on Christianity" template to "warn" people that this is a Christian organization. MCohen 20:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"that this is a Christian organization" is what JFJ proponents (including you) want to hide, whereas serious encyclopedias should make information accessible and systematize it. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

if you really believed that you would be as insistent on including, the template on EVERY other christian article, I don't see you putting it on the Navigators, Young Life or Youth With a Mission articles. so you aren't trying to be systematic or encyclopedic MCohen03:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

For whatever this is worth, the reference to these three groups is a red herring. I had never heard of any of them before, so I looked at the articles, which is difficult for the third group because it has no article. As for the first two, it is clear from their articles that they are self-avowed Christian organizations, there is no dispute about that on either of their talk pages, the first sentence of each article states their Christian affiliation and they are each in Christianity-related categories. I think the proponents of either of these groups would be more than happy to see a "Christianity" template on those pages. I'm guessing that the reason it isn't there is that nobody has gotten around to putting it there. So there is no analogy to what this discussion is about. 6SJ7 05:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Or it might be because the template isn't supposed to be used for articles which are so un-important relatively to Christianity.... Homestarmy 05:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that falls into the category of "anything is possible." Because there is no decision-making authority in Wikipedia deciding things like what articles are important or unimportant enough to warrant a particular tag, it is left to the collective actions, inactions and interactions of the users who know about particular articles, templates etc. and do or don't do particular things with them. As a result, when you wonder why something is or isn't the case with a particular article, especially an article that has not been highly controversial (like the three mentioned above, one of which is so quiet that it doesn't even exist), I think the answer is as likely to be sheer happenstance, as any logical or rational explanation. That's why I often have to laugh when someone says that so-and-so should or shouldn't happen with "this" article because it did or didn't happen with "that" or "those" articles. Such a statement assumes, among other things, that everybody who edits a particular article is aware of every other article that someone might think is analogous in some way to every editing controversy that may come up regarding the subject article, and has made a conscious decision to act or not act in certain ways regarding those other articles. In other words, it assumes a state of facts that, more often than not, does not exist. Quite often, things happen on Wikipedia just because they happen. 6SJ7 18:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether anything is possible or not isn't my concern, my concern is that the only reason i've seen for the template to be on the article are for redundant and pointless reasons, plus it sends the ridiculous message that Jews for Jesus is somehow an instrumental Wikipedia article concerning Christianity. Homestarmy 19:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not usually get too concerned over things like templates, categories and things like that, as I think the disputes they cause are often more trouble than any benefit they confer (like in this case, for example.) However, the facts are that there is a template for a "series on Christianity"; as far as anything I have seen, there is no limitation in the use of this template to articles that are "instrumental" to the subject at hand (in this case, Christianity), so there is no reason why this template cannot be placed on any article that concerns Christianity, without having to get into a debate about whether the article is "instrumental" to Christianity; this article is about a Christian group; and therefore if someone wants to place the "Christianity" template on this article, there is no basis for removing it. My point about the other three articles named is that the presence or absence of the template there is irrelevant to the presence or absence of it here. 6SJ7 20:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If it's part of a series, and the template lists categories and articles that fit inside the series, then can you please kindly point out which category on the template JfJ fits in? Because I sure don't see it, it's not a movement on it's own by the definition of that article, it's not a denomination, it's not part of the History of Christianity, it's certainly not part of the Bible, it doesn't make any new theology, I don't see the point. Just because there is no rule doesn't mean that it is not a bad thing to put this template on every Christianity-related article, it will likely be very confusing to readers who look at the template and try to think about how this article fits inside the series. Not having a spoken limit doesn't mean it can go anywhere, anytime. Homestarmy 21:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for warm invitation. I have no idea about those. Back to the topic: the more you and other JFJ proponents insist on hiding that JFJ is a Christian org., the more there is a need to expose it as such. I saw your attempts to turn this into a personal vendetta, don't. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You continue making personal attacks against me while accusing me of making attacks against you, I am neither a proponent of Jews for Jesus nor am I trying to Hide that they are a Christian organization. If you look at my earlier comments I favor the creation of an {{Evangelism}}template which would be appropriate for this article. what I oppose is the miss use of templates, and the violation NPOV rules in order to appease anyones persecution complex. I also opposes using a mass of non authoritative sources to create a definition of who is a Jew that is in direct contradiction to Jewish Law. If you look also I made comments in favor of the NPOV edits proposed by Shirahadasha, do you accuse her of being a proponent of JFJ too? MCohen 3:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to this article evidence otherwise: it is as much Jewish as it is christian..., removed the entire criticism section and your contribs to this talk page are for all to see.

Now, shall we talk about your incitement: [16] [17]. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You call those incitments????? Encouraging a user to learn how wikipedia works and asking an objective administrator to intervene when san other administrator is violating policy are not incitments . Well don't bother answering because I'm not going to be back to this page for who knows how long because, I am becomming busy, and have better things to do with my time than respond to your fantasies and try to balance your blantent distortions. So your brute force method of distortion wins, like lenin said "a lie told enough becomes the truth", so I hope you enjoy the feelings of superiority you feel from making your distorteds POV version prevail, but my leaving have nothing to do with conceding any point to you, this article just isn't important enough to argue over . I will not be back to view your maningless reply so don't bother. MCohen 02:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction 2

This section Jews_for_Jesus#Incompatibility_with_Judaism says that it is incompatible with Judaism, but in the inro it refers to a site that says that it is Messianic Judaism. What the heck? So it's Christian, but it's Judaic but it can't be Judaic because it's imcompatible with Judaism. Whiskey Rebellion 21:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism is not ordinary Judaism. Homestarmy 21:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not Judaism at all. It accepts Jesus, which makes it a Christian movement. Acceptance of Jesus puts one outside Judaism.--Mantanmoreland 21:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Reform, Jewish mothers, and Brickner.

Brickner is not Jewish according to Reform Judaism either, for several reasons:

1. Reform's "bilineal descent" policy was only brought in in 1983, long after Brickner was born, and many decades after Brickner's mother was born.
2. Reform's "bilineal descent" policy only applies to people who are born with a Jewish parent and raised Jewish; Brickner was born in a household that worshipped Jesus as Lord and Messiah.
3. The Reform movement states For us in the Jewish community anyone who claims that Jesus is their savior is no longer a Jew and is an apostate. (Contemporary American Reform Responsa, #68).

I hope this helps make things clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I tried to recover from edit conflict and didn't mean to reintrodiuce this confusion. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. I had thought it was a lot more liberal than that. --Mantanmoreland 23:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what reform Jews think anyway, because Jewish law is not determined by majority rule and Reform "Jews" with gentile mothers are every gentile as David Brickner. The issue is not wether any deviant anti-torah group says about whether David Brickner or Jews for Jesus are Jews, it's what does Jewish Law say MCohen 02:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

Of course we should assume good faith but I wouldn't be surprised if JFJ closely monitors this article. Judging from their funding and methods, JFJ has enough motivation to fight what they see as threat to their mission. Note the recent influx of new users, all focusing on one thing: attempting to hide that JFJ is a Christian evangelical group and not a Jewish group as they try to portray themselves. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I would of thought that if they honestly wanted to put in their own version of JfJ, they'd have a whole lot more new users and would probably just try and exploit the system with mass reversions :/. Homestarmy 05:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Brute force is not always the best method. But if it doesn't work, you are not applying enough of it... ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's just every time i've heard of outside organizations or whatever trying to whitewash articles it was some concerted group effort that was just using brute force. I'm not saying it's a good method, i'm just saying that's the method I would think they would try to employ first if they really were making an effort to re-write the article themselves.Homestarmy 18:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There might be 1-2 JfJ here but I haven't seen evidence for any deception on their part. Our policy is to assume good faith until we see evidence to the contrary. One user however has called others "crusading liars", espoused conspiracy theories about the motivations of others, and tried to get others blocked. I hope that user will see the light of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF Justforasecond 22:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't get too excited. The condition was for you to provide serious sources for your own claims, or you lose the last smidgens of credibility here. I hope you spent some time in a library. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

How many libraries carry an extensive collection of works concerning JfJ? Homestarmy 01:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia editors are supposed to be responsible for their claims, and serious claims require serious sources. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Back to the subject of this section: I think that incessant attempts to push Jesus in the throat of Judaism [18] can be safely disqualified from AGF. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, while I agree that the massive changes Paradox seems to be trying to force in aren't very well executed, I don't see how any of that overtly pushes Jesus in the throat of Judaism. Erasing criticism (especially the sourced kind) might of been bad, but that alone doesn't force the reader to accept the "other side". (though ideally, the article shouldn't be presenting any one side as the one to be accepted at all) Homestarmy 02:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

---

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Keep

• Template doesn't belong: 6 votes
• Template does belong: 9 votes

straw poll

I'm back after an illegitimate block.

I'd like to do a little straw poll here. The arguments in favor of the vandalistically applied template are that

Jews for Jesus article is either

1. included in the obviously labeled list of articles in a "Series on Christianity" or
2. important enough to be included in that series.

I completely disagree with both, but I'd like to get a read on who agrees with either of these statements. For what its worth, I'll discount a vote from the editor who has consistently personally attacked me and others (I'm a "crusading liar"), inserted POV generalizations, and tried to get others blocked for "edit warring". I'd also discount a vote from (personal attack removed) drseudo.

I would like to say that the arguments you say the proponets use are generalizations, some people might like to add arguments of their own for the template, give people a chance to argue for themselves please. Homestarmy 01:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I can't imagine a more unproductive and churlish way of raising this issue. --Mantanmoreland 01:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Template doesn't belong

• -Justforasecond 22:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• There is no real rational way I could possibly see anyone disputing that this is, indeed, a Christian organization, but the article says point blank in the intro it is basically Christian, it is in Category:Christian evangelicalism, (though, of course, I did add that one myself), and the template is overkill simply for the sake of overkill; it does not properly belong or relate to a single group of articles listed inside the template, and I suspect the only reason it is here is not because people are actually examining how the template is used and agreeing that JfJ belongs to one of the groups of articles, but because they wish to drive the point home as hard as possible that JfJ is, indeed, a Christian organization. The template was clearly not created for the purpose of telling people that so and so are Christian organizations, and if people would examine it closely enough, they might find that none of the topics listed in the template have any relation to JfJ at all. It is true that there is no policy saying that the Christianity template is supposed to be placed on articles that are relevant to the template, but there is also no policy mandating that it must be placed on articles even if the article isn't relevant to the template. Come on folks, I know alot of you dislike JfJ with a passion, but confusing the reader with templates which don't have content pertinent to the subject doesn't improve this article at all. Homestarmy 01:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove This is indeed a christian organization (sourced). However, this article not part of the "Part of a series of articles on Christianity" as the template describes. Maybe some other infobox that had christian links would belong, but not an infobox that says the article is part of a series that it is not part of. Like stated earlier in this talk page: Navigators, Teen Challenge, Young Life, Youth with a Mission: all of these pages are about christianity, but none of them are part of the "series" on christianity so they don't have the series infobox. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 01:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove This just can't belong in a Christianity series. It sounds like some nutty organization from what I read in the referenced article, which is written by ex-JFSs. It does not sound like a legitimate organization that has any serious relationship to Christian groups. It's certainly not a sect of Christianity. It's not part of the series -- For Wikipedia's sake please get it out. Whiskey Rebellion 06:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove What a strange discussion. Look, one is born Jewish and shall die Jewish. It's in our blood. That some who share our blood feel the Messiah came and went 2,000 years ago and we missed it doesn't change the DNA of his or her mother. JfJ are wrong in my opinion, but they are by definition a Jewish organization. Hell, my Hassidic friends barely consider me a Jew! --Beware of Cow 08:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Off-topic. We are not talking about if jews can be christian. We are not even talking about if JfJ is a jewish or christian group. These things would need sourcing to be on-topic anyways. We are talking about if the "christian series" template {{christianity}} belongs in the JfJ article. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove The organization, while Christian, is not an essential element or major topic in Christianity and therefore does not get the template. Does every Jewish article get the Jewish template? No. --Eliyak T·C 18:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Only if JfJ is Christian does the important criterion obtain: 'is JfJ sufficiently Christian to warrant a Christianity template'? First, there is no consensus that Jfj is Christian. However, even if we assume they are, the latter criterion is certainly answered in the negative. Jews for Jesus is an impotent organization within Christianity itself. The standard used for the template addition produces the fact that the article on Thomas Aquinas does not get the Christianity template. If Thomas doesn't get it, JfJ certainly do not. Its inclusion is pure POV propaganda by Jews who wish to push their own theological claim that Judaism and a belief in a divine Christ are incommensurable ideas. They may be right, to be sure, but it is POV nonetheless.ParadoxTom 22:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

On a personal note I would like to say that is possibly the most outrageous, offensive comment I have ever read: there are "POV propaganda Jews" who are "pushing their own claim" that Judaism is not compatible with a belief in christ as G-d? - Abscissa 02:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

While I question just how offensive it really is, Abscissa is right to call that out, Paradox, that's just pure WP:ABF. Furthermore, the template is not propaganda, even if people are trying to mis-use it. Homestarmy 18:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Template does belong

• This is indeed a Christain organisation by it's own definition and deserves the template. Though I think this article is too POV on this point. Masterhomer 00:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The way you say "deserves the template" makes it seem that pages with the template are carrying something like a badge of dishonor, at least I think it seems your statement could be taken that way. Homestarmy 01:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Statements can be taken many ways. Masterhomer 02:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• It seems that the argument has shifted from "This is not a Christian organization" to "This is a Christian organization but the template does not belong". What Christian org. would not want to have the Christianity template in their article? Perhaps one that uses deception to lure potential converts. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is a badge of honor, that this article doesn't merit. [[User:MCohen|MCohen] 02:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a Christian org. which realizes that it doesn't make new theology, is not a part of the Bible, is not a part of History of Christianity, is not itself a part of a new denomination or movements, and isn't part of the trinity? (which wouldn't make sense anyway because then it would be four parts instead of three) I'm just taking guesses here, it would seem to me that having the intro shout out that an organization is Christian would be good enough for anyone. Homestarmy 01:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Agree - the template mentions "movements" within Christianity so maybe the article on Christian movements (which I think is linked from the templates) should be edited to include groups like this, though I am not sure what to call it. I suspect that my preferred categorization of J4J, "missionary cults", probably wouldn't pass POV muster. 6SJ7 01:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If it is edited, it's focus would have to be compleatly altered and would have to include just about every group that has 100 or more people involved for consistancy. Currently, JfJ advocates no new theological, philosophical, or political aspects concerning Christianity, and it hasn't made a new sect/denomination to do so. Homestarmy 02:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the impact on the template would be anywhere near that significant. As for every group with 100 or more people, not every group with 100 or more people is well-funded enough to buy advertising time on some of the biggest radio stations in New York City every summer, trying to convince Jewish people to believe in Jesus; nor to print up publications that falsely imply that a Jewish celebrity believes in Jesus; nor have they attracted entire web sites and entire books devoted to exposing their activities. J4J has done all these things. 6SJ7 05:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

But are you really prepared to basically re-write an entire article, (the current one doesn't even come close to acknowladging JfJ as a "Christian movement") just so you can place one template on one article which already says, very clearly I might add, that this is indeed a Christian organization? Homestarmy 12:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps the template needs to be tweaked? Surely J4J is better known to the bloke on the street than many if not most of the Christian movements referenced in the template. --Mantanmoreland 14:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to discuss making an {{evangelism}} template earlier, but I couldn't get feedback on what sort of categories it should contain, such a template could be made specifically to include groups such as JfJ and then there wouldn't be a need for people to want to bend the usage of templates at all. Homestarmy 16:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Agree. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. I might have gone the other way but Justforasecond persuaded me otherwise. I suggest that he not go into the evangelizing biz. ;) --Mantanmoreland 02:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. Changed my vote. There are a bunch of christian articles with the {{christianity}} template. JoshuaZ showed me a buch of examples: Cathedral, Great Lent, Shakers, Ante-Nicene Fathers, and Traducianism. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The first two fit as part of the history of Christianity, the next one is an important group of people, the next is apparently one of the only sources for important early Christian writings, and the last is about theology. They all relate to topics inside the template, so of course they all have it. How does JfJ compare to the importance of any of those articles? Homestarmy 17:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I never said the article was important. I just think that the {{christianity}} infobox is consistent with the sourced content and there are examples of articles that use the infobox. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Then could you tell me which part of the template (Besides the word "Christianity") actually relates to JfJ? So far, I haven't been able to get a straight answer to that. Homestarmy 18:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of it: Christianity, Trinity, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, Christian theology, Fall of Man, Salvation, etc. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the word "Christianity" isn't actually listed as part of the series first of all, and the articles in question describe the topic, they aren't lists of people who believe in the topic. JfJ provides no new insight whatsoever into any of those subjects, and has no impact on any of them. Homestarmy 01:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Agree. The template clearly belongs, the "Russel's paradox" argument for its removal does not fly: i.e. that the article is not a subset of the set of articles within the template. Furthermore, WP:Wikipedia is not a Nancy Drew Book Series and the word "series" does not mean a finite number. The article covers topics dealing with Christianity, not Judaism, since it is an organisation of Christians. They could be called "asdasdasd" and still be Christians, they could be called "Muslims for Buddha who worship Krishna" and it would not warrant an Islam template, because they are still Christians. - Abscissa 02:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not just not a subset, it isn't close to any sets at all! It isn't even it's own denomination, it's just a group within a group which is arguably not a denomination in the first place, since the Messianic Judaism article says their believers are spread through, what, 280 different denominations? Besides, the article covers instances dealing with court cases, does that mean that a template concerning judicial proceedings should go into that section? Or wait, the article mentions something concerning Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism issuing opinions concerning something, I guess we need the templates for those groups too? (I'm fairly certain there's at least an RC one) "Series" might not mean a finite number, but it doesn't mean an infinite number, as in giving permission to put the template on any articles you please as long as some part of them somehow has some relation, however obscure, to the religion of Christianity. Homestarmy 02:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Agree. Clearly belongs here. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Polls are evil and stupid

• see Wikipedia: Straw polls. drseudo (t) 01:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• If it will stop edit warring it might make sense to take away the template since anyone who reads the article will get the same material. That said, polls are evil and furthermore I note that in Justfor's call for the poll he calls it "vandalistically applied" and distorts the actual arguments for inclusion of the template. This is not even an attempt at an accurate presentation of the matter at hand. If Justfor continues an RfC may be in order. JoshuaZ 01:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• This poll is stupid. I abstain on "evil."--Mantanmoreland 01:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• OK, I am sort of voting twice, but I agree with Mantanmoreland, particularly for the reason that this is a poll where the poll-starter has announced in advance that two of the people involved in the dispute will not have their votes counted. I almost just abstained on the whole thing, but I do think the template should remain and if the article does not squarely fit the template, then it is the template that should be changed. 6SJ7 01:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. Voting twice as well. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• VIE. Voting once, but I just don't see the point.Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 07:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC) PS: As per Aiden at [[19]].Aiden makes a lot of sense.
• In addition polls are dirty when people rig them by telling the audience how to vote. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware calling something how I see it is vote rigging. But hey, if telling people that adding this template to the hundreds of articles that have something remotely to do with Christianity would take a long time and is a big change in how the template is used is somehow vote rigging, then I am guilty as charged. (And i'd do it again, too!) :D Homestarmy 01:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Jackie Mason

For anyone interested, the infamous Jackie Mason pamphlet and a bunch of other J4J pamphlets :

http://www.jesusforjews.org/broadsides/more/

Turns out theres a Steve Jobs pamphlet too.

And turns out that cnn.com considers J4J a Jewish group: "Founded in the 1970s, Jews for Jesus practices Judaism but regards Jesus as the Messiah."[20]

Justforasecond 16:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Where do you think CNN got their info from? I'll give you three guesses... --Eliyak T·C 18:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Eli seems to have a good point there heh. Homestarmy 18:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

cnn meets WP:RS. It's at least as reliable as the sites denouncing j4j. Justforasecond 19:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The kicker is in "practices". They don't quite preach what they practice. JFW | T@lk 20:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

And, of course, the kicker is also in that it seems cnn got it's source straight from JfJ.... Homestarmy 20:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The New York Times referred to J4J in its Jackie Mason article as a "Christian evangelical group." [21]--Mantanmoreland 14:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh no! It's CNN vs. the New York Times! Is there no truth in the world anymore? --Eliyak T·C 18:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why the article doesn't mention the earlier legal issues with using the Curious George character without permission. Certainly it got far more news coverage than any of their other activities for a while, and seems similar to the Jackie Mason situation. Fan-1967 18:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, was there one? If so, then there might need to be a section on it in the legal action section. Homestarmy 18:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It happened in 2001. They had a pamphlets featuring cartoons with Curious George, used totally without permission ([22]) (the late author H. A. Rey was Jewish). When the CG publishers sued them, j4j tried to claim that stealing the character was legitimate "parody". Judge didn't buy it. The Curious George article references it, but the only source listed there is The Daily Show, which might make people think it's a joke. Fan-1967 19:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The diff you have there seems sufficient to at least start a new section. Homestarmy 02:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Latest edits

The latest edits removed all sorts of sourced information, ignored the lack of consensus for change above, and falsely quoted the actual sources used. Please suggest major changes, especially inaccurate ones, here on the Talk: page first. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You've just reverted to some very POV language:

All mainstream Jewish groups (both secular and religious) strongly oppose Jews for Jesus

• All mainstream? "mainstream" is POV. Who is creating this list of "all" mainstream Jewish groups. Isn't it possible there is a mainstream secular jewish group somewhere in Eastern Europe that couldn't care less about j4j?
• Strongly oppose? POV. Strongly to me might be weakly to you.

These don't meet wiki criteria and I'm beginning to lose faith that editors are trying to craft a high quality article.

Justforasecond 20:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

See my comments at the bottom of this section[23].--Mantanmoreland 21:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The article in its present form[24] is certainly high-quality. It doesn't mince words about how all generally-perceived-as-Jewish Jewish denominations think of J4J. Citing exceptions may be the best way: how many widely published non-J4J Jewish spokespeople have publically stated that J4J is a Jewish denomination? How much derision have they suffered after making that controversional kind of statement?

There's more at stake here. Wikipedia is a highly popular online resource, and it is entirely in the interest of J4J to be perceived by the colloquial reader as "just another Jewish orginisation with some extras they didn't get on Mount Sinai". JFW | T@lk 21:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

<Chuckle> I would imagine that most editors can see that "All mainstream Jewish groups (both secular and religious) strongly oppose Jews for Jesus" is an unverifiable and POV thing to say. How could you ever verify this? There's no directory of mainstream Jewish groups to email. Justforasecond 21:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox Judaism together make up about 90% of the religious Jewish denominations, with the rest filled in by many smaller groups. How can any objective outsider disagree that these are the mainstream groups? Additionally, "strongly oppose," is, of course, relative – relative to the other opinions of the main Jewish denominations. Jews for Jesus by far is the group they most strongly oppose, in a religious sense. --Eliyak T·C 22:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No one disputes that "these are the mainstream groups". But 90% does not make "All". "Nearly all" would be unproblematic, at least for me.ParadoxTom 23:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, Jews for Jesus is listed on the article Christian denomination as a group "outside the mainstream." Perhaps I should go over there and abolish that section, since, after all, who is Wikipedia to say what is mainstream? --Eliyak T·C 23:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Why would you do that? That's a true claim: JfJ is outside the Christian mainstream. I don't see a problem there.ParadoxTom 23:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant the comment facetiously, not as a threat. --Eliyak T·C 23:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The link to http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history_community/Jewish_World_Today/Denominations.htm is in the article. Questions? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's clear "all" doesn't belong and neither does "strongly". Some would argue even "mainstream" is POV. Who decides what is mainstream? As if that's not enough, this says all mainstream secular groups "strongly oppose" JfJ. So the little Jewish club down the street that plays mah-jong "strongly opposes" jfj? Hmmmm....has anyone asked them? This is getting farsical. Justforasecond 23:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you willing to argue that mainstream in Christianity is well defined but mainstream in Judaism is not? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not about "mainstream judaism", this is about "all mainstream jewish groups (religious and secular) are strongly opposed to jfj" (even though no one knows who they are and no one has asked them either) 00:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist movements have verifiably denied the divinity of Jesus, these movements enclose the vast vast majority of Judaism theocracy. Historically and presently, this is what seperates Christanity and Judaism. Simply put, the ideas put through by JfJ are incompatable with Judaism. Christainity is incompatable with Judaism. That is why they are different religions. I don't see why you continue to deny this. Masterhomer 06:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well said, MH. FYI, I have removed "strongly" from "strongly oppose". Hope it resolves the issue. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What are the real numbers of Jews for Jesus out there?

Let's reverse one of the above arguments for a moment. Can anyone come up with known, scientifically verifiable numbers of people who have come forward who can be 100% exactly classified as dyed-in-the-wool true-believing "Jews for Jesus" especially the exact numbers of people who were born Jews and then subseqquently became heart and soul full-fledged members of the Jews for Jesus movement? After all this is a Johny-come-lately missionary effort headed by this organization, and all of a sudden they want to be regarded as a "denomination" of Jews no less than those that have been around for centuries and millenia. So, pray, anyone, please tell the world exactly how many PROVEN and known Jews for Jesus there are out there so that any rational person can decide if they are fit to be a "denomination" of anything rather than the simple missionaries that they are viewed as by everyone. 500? 1000? 10,000? 50,000? 100,000? What do respected sociologists and demographers say? For example, the highly regarded National Jewish Population Survey of 2000 and 1990 has estimated statistics for "Jews" who have become Christians or more broadly "those who practice other faiths", but at no point do the secular academicians themselves call Jews who have become Christians as a "denomination" of Judaism which is a notion (more a "leap of faith" not based on hard logic but more on blind faith) that the Jews for Jesus seem to be hell-bent on foisting on the world for the very obvious legitimization they seek but which simple logic will always deny them. IZAK 09:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

J4J forums

FYI, the J4J forums has a topic on this article.[25]. It's fairly mild.--Mantanmoreland 14:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Those forums are moderated post by post, despite a seemly open section saying "For those who disagree" or whatever. They only seem to accept critical posts with weak and/or nonexistant arguements, so that their supporters look better refuting them. Masterhomer 20:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm mentioning it because of the danger of meatpuppets.--Mantanmoreland 20:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Moderated post by post? I've never heard of anything like that before actually turning into a really worthwhile endeavor...... Homestarmy 02:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What're meatpuppets, again? Are they the same as sockpuppets? Darthmix 17:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly, meatpuppets are actually different people, it's just the meatpuppet master is telling his friends/acquaintences/what-have-you to basically support him in everything. Homestarmy 17:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

OT, you seem well informed in these matters, Home. Can you take a look at my last comment in the POV section. Are you familiar with the essay to which I refer? There are many and I can't recall which one. --Mantanmoreland 18:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunently, i'm not familiar with the particular person you were talking about, I don't know of any essays by him :/ Homestarmy 21:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh he's the guru, pardon the expression, of Catholic-Jewish reconcilation. His writings are quite brilliant and I recommend them, if such things are your cup of tea. Ironically he was mistrusted by Jews for his active postwar missionary work.--Mantanmoreland 22:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

That could be part of the problem, i'm a non-denominational protestant heh. What is this particular essay about, just reconciliation in general? Homestarmy 22:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well then you may have less interest in the subject matter than some of us more directly involved. He wrote exclusively on reconciliation, and I do recall his touching on the hostility that he received from Jews in his postwar missionary work. Damned if I can recall where I saw it. Might have been in one of his books. I am just an "Oesterreicher missionary," so don't mind me.--Mantanmoreland 22:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So if it was in a book, do you think we could find it on the internet somewhere or would it only be inside his book? Homestarmy 22:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Not many of his writings are on the Internet. I tried Google book search but no luck. Oh well. I have read his books but do not own any.--Mantanmoreland 22:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

POV

i've tried to clean things up a bit though someone else will have to remove the vandalistically applied christianity template lest i be reported for "edit warring" by humus. i've added a link to the christianity and judaism portals in the "see also" section. these links are more fitting than claiming this is "part of the series on christianity"

this article was very heavy on anti-jfj stuff. a lengthy "criticism" section as well as criticisms inserted into nearly every other section. the missionaries are "taught to speak in hebrew" (these people already went to hebrew school!) and jfj is known to "target vulnerable jews" (oh really?) and "most of the funding comes from christians" (well did we think it was coming from muslims and religious jews?) and the current leader "is not jewish" (even though his mother, father, all grandparents were apparently jewish)

some of the criticisms' references were just opinion pieces from religious jews who oppose conversion. most come from biased publications that don't meet wikipedia's reliable sources standards. including these references is analogous to editing the "buddhism" article to say that "all buddhists will burn in hell" along with a reference to some fire-n-brimstone website.

anyway, if all we're trying to get across is that some, even many, jewish people and groups oppose jfj we don't need to spread it all over the article. it isn't at all surprising that religious jews don't want other jews to accept jesus -- every missionary movement is opposed by someone.

Justforasecond 22:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Friend, your edits pushed your delusion that J4J is just another Jewish denomination that a bunch of long-bearded Hassidim oppose. You don't seem to comprehend how the group ruffles feathers throughout the whole length and breadth of the Jewish community even among commies and even among a lot of Christians, as it is contrary to the spirit of modern ecumenicism. J4J is as much defined by the hostility to it as anything else. That is the state of play. I think that you can make a case if you feel the wording is not neutral, but you can't water down the unanimous opposition to J4J and call that "NPOV"--Mantanmoreland 01:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the "friend", nice words are always welcome, even though the rest is not. Please don't accuse me of "pushing my delusions". Some jewish groups may strongly oppose them, but there's no way to show that "all" "mainstream" jewish groups, including "secular" groups "strongly" oppose them, without taking the liberty of defining who "all" the "mainstream" jewish groups are, and what degree of "opposition" is "strong". Can you really not see this simple truth?

Beyond that it just isn't appropriate to overwhelm this article with criticism. I outlined this above already. Statements like j4j approachs "vulnerable jews" are unabashedly POV -- and tautological. If anyone converts then its clear they were "vulnerable" to conversion, so if anyone approached converts, then j4j has approaches "vulnerable jews".

It's not in question that all missionary groups are converting someone from some belief system to another, but it is only barely notable that someone opposes this conversion. Does McDonald's oppose Burger King and try to put them out of business at every turn? Yes...but who cares? Do drug smugglers "strongly oppose" DEA agents coming along and busting up their operations? Yes...but it would be silly to put it in an article. Everyone has opposition and it just goes without saying. Still, I wouldn't be "strongly opposed" to his article having a section on opposition, but nearly every corner of this article is littered with criticism that is all essentially the same.

Compare this article to that of any other missionary group. In the article "christianity" is there a section labeled "incompatibility with paganism" and "a belief that is incompatible with paganism" and "all pagan groups strongly oppose christianity"? Do we see "incompatibility with catholicism" in the protestant article? I know this analogy is not going to be satisfying, but no analogy is ever complete.

What are the further objections? Yes, the group may be called "Jews for Jesus" and that offends people, but what would you have them call themselves? Would "Jews that are now christians but still consider themselves jewish" be better? They did use Jackie Mason in a pamphlet. They also used Steve Jobs and Curious George, and a whole bunch of others, but i don't see Steve Jobs supporters here furious about Jews for jesus "deceiving" ipod owners into believing in jesus.

I've given up on the fair play of a few editors already. I'm holding out hope this will ring true with the editors that recognize the rationality of what I say. There are some editors here like Joshuaz who have been on wiki a long time and, though they may, like all of us, get involved in the occassional dust-up, know what is right. Justforasecond 04:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you site one mainstream or any Jewish group that accepts J4J or has a single non-oppositional word to say about it? I'm just suggesting that this hostility is a fact and defines the movement, so the criticism section is substantial for that reason and is probably is understated. Also it goes against the whole spirit of Vatican II and other recent thinking in the Church.--Mantanmoreland 17:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't imagine this needs to be explained further. Justforasecond 01:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is nothing further to say, there being no Jewish groups supporting J4J.--Mantanmoreland 14:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you know it might be useful if I can get, and maybe post a link here if it is available online, some thoughts that Monsignor John M. Oesterreicher had on the subjet of targeting Jews for conversion. He was himself a former Jew and in fact did just that kind of missionary work after WWII. His views on the subject evolved. Not sure it belongs in the article but you and other editors may find it interesting.--Mantanmoreland 17:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Italicize?

1. Jews oppose Jews for Jesus
2. Jews oppose Jews for Jesus

Compare the two. Should we italicize every occurrence of JFJ in the article to reduce confusion? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It can't hurt. Homestarmy 12:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is better.ParadoxTom 22:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

Paradox, I'm glad you found the compromise acceptable. One question: you say nearly all the major denominations regard it as Christian. Can you say which one doesn't? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not right--I only claim that not "all" denominations of Judaism regard JfJ as not Jewish; viz. JfJ. You cannot claim 'well, JfJ is not Jewish' because 'is Jewish' is not a logically unambiguous predicate, and so you're begging the question. As long as you spell out exactly who you mean by 'mainstream (e.g. Reform Jews, Orthodox Jews, etc.), it's fine.ParadoxTom 22:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)