Talk:Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations

Tough task for the IQed!!

This phrase doesn't work:

maintains a belief in both Hebrew and Christian scripture

The greatest trouble is that if we replace the absolutely too vague "Hebrew" with something on par with "Christian" in order to make the X-and-Y clause symmetric, we get "Jewish and Christian scripture", which is factually wrong for the Messianic Jewish movement if we include Talmud, or just a tautological clause if we exclude Talmud, since the "Bible" already include "Tanakh"...

The Messianic Jews observe both traditional Jewish and Christian practices, while the beliefs, from my Christian standing point, cannot be interpreted as anything else than Christian. It's a modern branch of Christianity observing many Torah practices that aren't generally observed among us "Gentiles". ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Messianic Jews observe very few 'Christian' practices, and most reject practices that contradict Tanakh (Christmas, Easter, passing the plate, etc.). In practice, most observe the holidays and worship style of the Conservative, Orthodox or Reform congregation they grew up in.--DeknMike (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop it with the edit war on the last paragraph

I don't even feel it should be there considering this is about the UMJC and not orthodox Judaism. However, I did leave it with the exception of acknowledgment that to Messianic Jews and the New Testament Jewish believers remain very much so JEWISH. I have added sources including and not limited to "Act 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, "how many thousands of Jews there are which believe"; and they are all zealous of the law" --Teacherbrock (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

We probalby need non-Biblical sources for something like this. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 02:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

non-biblical? It is biblical evidence that Jewish believers remain "jews". Orthodox and Haredi use the Talmud to try to say that Jewish believers are no longer of the Jews, so I don't see why using the New Testament is any less valid. And if that isn't enough then this paragraph needs removed completely on the basis that it has nothing to do with "Messianic Judaism". --Teacherbrock (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The way Messianic Jews classify themselves is not verified by a Biblical reference. A contemporary reference to a news article or some other acceptable reliable source would be preferred. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 02:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There is also a contemporary MSNBC article reference as well. --Teacherbrock (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Ok why delete the the Mainstream media article reference?

I removed the paragraph as their aren't sufficient references to make the claim that all Jewish groups consider Messianic Jews a separate group from Judaism, and your additions because they were a response to that and didn't really make sense without the context that the former provided. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 02:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems good to me. --Teacherbrock (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for being reasonable. I'm sure it's been discussed in much farther depth somewhere on Talk:Messianic Judaism. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 02:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Danke and Shalom --Teacherbrock (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about UJMC. Any disagreement with whether their beliefs are valid should be taken up on your own opinion page.--DeknMike (talk) 03:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Retain their ability to pass on Jewish status

It depends of the mother is really Jewish. If she is not Jewish, but is married to someone who might be, or just likes the scene, the she and all of her children are not considered Jewish.--Eyescreamcone (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Some people make think they are Jewish, but they might not actually be Jewish. --Eyescreamcone (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Eyescreamcone, the purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements to the article, not for your personal musings on halakha. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Notable tag

I put a notable tag on the article last night. At that time the article was only sourced to the group's own website, that is the information on the group itself. Very little showed up on a quick websearch so it didn't look like they were very important. However this morning I checked out news and books and there is enough material for an article. I would rather see the article be just about the group itself, even if that's a stub. Borock (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• It looks like it's up to me, since the last comment above is from 2011. :-) -Borock (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)