body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents

very unfair, non neutral article[edit]

Jews for judaism is allowed to advertise on the Jews for Jesus page but on the Jews for judaism page they can't even talk rationally about Jesus. here's some advice it's this kind of bias in mainstream judaism against christianity that Jews are tired of. everyone knows what the torah says, christians made it the most printed book in history, many jews don't see a conflict between it and yeshua translated iesous translated Jesus. some jews let the talmud (any logical, honest individual can see obvious problems with it when compared to the torah) and people who hate christians for other reasons (based on emotional, irrational behavior planted in them from another person within the Jewish community) dictate to them what it means to Jewish. others don't. Jews for Jesus whether it is an outreach or not will always exist because Jews who take an interest in Jesus are ostrtacized, rejected, persecuted, by not only their communities but their families. Jews for Jesus gives them a place they can fellowship with other Jews who have gone through the same thing. shame on judaism for its treatment of people who accept the most famous Jew in history whose resurrection even non Christian historians have a hard time denying.

may i suggest people who oppose Jews for Jesus (any member of Judaism who considers a belief in Jesus to take away a persons Jewishness) be unable to remove information that supports the organization. this is analogous to a muslim taking control of the page on judaism.

Grmike (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)GRMIKEReply[reply]

Shouldn't the Jews for Jesus article be compared to the Christians for Judaism article, rather than the Jews for Judaism article? Bus stop (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A neutral article on Jews for Jesus will contain complete coverage of opposition to the organizations activities. I think the article is reasonably well balanced. Fred Talk 20:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that the opposition section of this article is highly unbalanced and anti-Jews for Jesus. If Jews for Jesus wish to call themselves Jews, that is their prerogative. It is highly bigoted and xenophobic to say that someone who considers themselves a Jew is not a Jew. It is just like certain evangelicals saying that Mormons are not Christian. I would also point out that certain denominations of Christianity cling to certain Jewish beliefs, such as celebrating the Jewish holidays (including Sukkot), refusing to celebrate Christmas and Easter, following the Jewish dietary laws, and following the practice of unleavened bread during Passover. I would point to Armstrongism and 7th Day Adventists as two examples. Neither of those articles contains a criticism section where major Christian denominations denounce them as non-Christian. The criticism section of this article is skating very close to bigotry, xenophobia, and racism, which is a violation of Wikipedia policies. --Westwind273 (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Jews for Jesus is not considered a sect of Judaism by any mainstream Jewish authorities."[edit]

Do we have a citation for this? It's a very broad statement and I don't find that statement in either of the two references provided. It recently replaced less definitive, more equivocal language (which I agree was problematic), but it may be over-reach. Can someone provide a cite or clarification? Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are not that many Rabbinical Authorities, so it is not hard to verify that none of them recognize Messianics. This link is to a Joint Statement by all the major rabbinical authorities in the USA repudiating Jews for Jesus and Messianic Judaism: Joint Task Force. And another, older one: Meeting The Challenge 73.240.169.138 (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This statement in the article shows exactly how biased this article is against Jews for Jesus. Compare this article with the articles on Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormonism. There is no statement in either of those articles saying "Jehovah's Witnesses (or Mormonism) is not considered a sect of Christianity by any mainstream Christian authorities". Doctrinal differences are highlighted, but there is no such statement in either the JV or Mormonism articles. --Westwind273 (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jews for Jesus is not accepted by any Jewish authorities. Judaism is a more centralized religion, in a way not unlike Catholicism. For the Catholics, the Pope is the authority and no sect can be Catholic without the Pope's acceptance, if the Pope says no, you can't really argue. In Judaism, they have the Rabbinic authority. Protestants do not have such centralized authorities.
Judaism is allowed to make their own rules. They have specifically rejected Jews for Jesus. Saying anything less gives the false impression that Wikipedia supports their contested claim to be a Jewish sect.Laella (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are in fact major leaders within protestant Christianity. The Southern Baptist Convention and the Assemblies of God are two of the largest protestant denominations in the United States. I suggest you ask the leaders of these organizations if they feel Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are Christians. The answer will surprise you. Moreover, America has a number of prominent evangelical Christian colleges, two of which are Liberty University and Wheaton College. I suggest you ask the leaders of these colleges if they feel Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians. Here again, the answer will surprise you. In the end, the really disappointing thing about this article is that it takes the question "Who is a Jew?" and applies a double-standard that is not applied to any other religion. This is a violation of Wikipedia's goal of neutrality. --Westwind273 (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it is relevant to Jehova's Witnesses or Mormons, then yes, it should be permitted in their description, that they are considered controversial by other Protestant denominations. A quick peek at their wikipedia pages show that controversy about their beliefs is mentioned on both. That Jews for Jesus is not accepted as a Jewish sect by any Jewish authority is not even in question. And it is relevant to those seeking information about the organization from an encyclopedia type reference.
As for this being a double standard - please explain how you would classify a theoretical "Christians for Muhammad" organization seeking to promote the belief that Muhammad is the Christian Messiah, and that Muhammad supersedes Jesus. Do you feel that it would be incorrect to point out any controversy about accepting "Christians for Muhammad" as a Christian organization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laella (talk • contribs)

First you say there are no Christian leaders who say that Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian, and then when I point out that there clearly are, you shift your argument to some other claim. In fact, you are incorrect about the content of your original link to the JCRC of New York. You incorrectly claim this is a national organization, when it is just New York. Look up the definition of Jew in any standard dictionary. It does not mean just those who practice the Jewish faith. The primary meaning of Jew is people who trace their descent from the Biblical Hebrews or from adherents of Judaism in the Jewish diaspora. It is primarily based on ancestry, not current religious practice. Thus, your reference to "Christians for Muhammad" is incorrect, since there is no ethnicity called "Christian". In fact, the original 12 apostles of Jesus were Jews. Were they not "Jews for Jesus"? --Westwind273 (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I never said no Christian leaders said that Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian, and I was just trying to reference your examples. Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are not relevant to Judaism at all and I make no claim to know anything about them.
I did not claim anything about the JCRC. On the page I linked to, there is a list of PDFs with letters from national Jewish organizations sent to the JCRC, each pdf contains multiple letters. The list of statements is comprehensive.
I have done no original research, I have only been active on the talk page anyway.
The Jewish community is free to define themselves however they wish.
Any person of Jewish ancestry is more than free to define themselves as such.
absolutely none of this is actually relevant to the sentence that bothers you - "Jews for Jesus is not considered a sect of Judaism by any mainstream Jewish authorities"
- To prove otherwise, you could show one mainstream, legitimate Jewish authority that recognizes Jews for Jesus as a Jewish organization.
Laella (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may feel that the Jewish community is not defined by a dictionary, but that is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is based upon reliable sources, like standard dictionaries. If you want to create an encyclopedia with different rules, you are free to go off and do that yourself, but Wikipedia has clear guidelines about appropriate sources of information. --Westwind273 (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Westwind273 Please read (or re-read, if you have read them in the past) WP:CIV and WP:NPA - these are policy here, and must be adhered to. In your comments above, you have directly accused another editor of lying, you have implied that they are a bigot, you say they are obsessed, and compare their arguments to those of the nazis. Such hyperbole is not conducive to a collaborative editing environment; please don't personalise this, make your arguments without resorting to invective. GirthSummit (blether) 14:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reference to lying is point taken. I apologize, and I have edited my remarks to make this point with civility. As for bigotry, I do not believe the other editor is generally a bigot. But I do believe the content of this article exhibits bigotry, and when an editor restates the content of the article on the talk page, it also exhibits bigotry. If there were a Wikipedia article which stated factually that all Muslims are devils, then would an editor be incorrect in stating on the talk page that this is a bigoted article? The Nazi regime is not hyperbole, it is a historical fact. Historical comparisons are in fact valid argument. In the end, Wikipedia's greatest weakness is its liberal and anti-evangelical bias. The members of Jews for Jesus are of Jewish ancestry and self-identify as Jews. Can't you see how insulting it is for a Wikipedia article to factually state that they are not Jews? But I guess Wikipedia editors always come down on the side of liberals and anti-evangelicals. So I give up. I will not post here anymore. --Westwind273 (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Westwind273, thanks for apologising. I don't need you to stop posting, I just need you to keep it civil - comparisons to nazis, for example, are specifically prohibited by NPA. I can't see anywhere in this article where it says that Jewish members of Jews for Jesus are not Jews - the article says that it is not recognised as a sect of Judaism by Jewish authorities. I have no view on whether that assertion is correct or not, but do please try to keep the discussion on point. GirthSummit (blether) 10:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are we reading the same article? The criticism section clearly states that "belief in Jesus" is "not compatible with being Jewish"? The section goes on to use the pejorative "Hebrew Christians" rather than Jews to refer to Jews for Jesus. Conversely, the introduction to the article goes out of its way to state that Jews for Jesus is not a sect of Judaism, when Jews for Jesus never claim that it is. I challenge you to find the statement "We are a sect of Judaism" anywhere on the Jews for Jesus website. You will not find it. In fact, the Jews for Jesus website goes out of its way to explain what are the sects of Judaism at https://jewsforjesus.org/publications/newsletter/newsletter-feb-1990/the-three-branches-of-judaism/
In the end, this article is simply a hit piece on Jews for Jesus. It is one of the worst examples of liberal bias on Wikipedia. I also wonder why you chose to moderate me, and not the above editor TimothyJosephWood calling another editor inane and inappropriately using the Not Done template. I guess it is because he is arguing the other side of the issue. Again, liberal bias. --Westwind273 (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Westwind273, apologies - I was referring only to the statement in the lead, which this thread is named for, and which was what I thought you were disputing. I haven't actually read the article, because I'm not here to comment on content, only to ensure that expected standards of conduct are maintained. I chose to comment on your conduct for the reasons outlined above - you made at least one blatant personal attack, and you were making comparisons of other editors to nazis. Policy is clear on this, those kinds of comments are expressly prohibited. I might also add that your ascribing my decision to a perceived liberal bias, rather than just accepting that I made it because you crossed over a line, is in itself casting aspersions , which is also a violation of NPA. Stop commenting on other users, or what you believe their biases might be, and restrict yourself talking calmly about content and sourcing. You'll find that's more effective at winning people over, and it won't get you blocked, which is what will happen if you keep up the personal attacks. GirthSummit (blether) 19:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If an editor notices that those on one side of an argument are subject to stringent moderation, but those on the other side are not, what is the proper reaction? --Westwind273 (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Westwind273, perhaps ask me politely why I haven't done anything about that? The comment is from April 2016 - do you really think it needs my attention? GirthSummit (blether) 23:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I will try to follow your guidelines. --Westwind273 (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Westwind273 I will edit my arguments above to leave only those specific to the sentence in question. I ask that you please edit your comments to remove the rest of the Bigot and Nazi references, and anything directed towards me, and just leave your comments about the sentence. Thank you. Laella (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I did it just now, but if you see anything else you don't like, feel free to edit my remarks. Thank you. --Westwind273 (talk) 05:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't like editing other people's posts - but I am going to remove one sentence of yours and I think we can get back to the discussion at hand.


To address newer claims - Jews for Jesus does present themselves as a Jewish organization (this is one page from their website filled with references to themselves as Jews Jews For Jesus Messianic Jews )
Neither this article, nor this sentence address "Who is a Jew?". The organization in question is not accepted as Jewish. That doesn't mean that there aren't Jews (as well as non-Jews) in that organization. I have never heard that "Hebrew Christians" was pejorative, and a quick google search doesn't turn anything up for me (there is even a wikipedia page on the Hebrew Christian movement, and it seems fairly positive).
There is (obviously) a lot of controversy around Jews for Jesus. The point that "Jews for Jesus is not considered a sect of Judaism by any mainstream Jewish authorities." is an important part of addressing the controversy. Although, I could see making the argument that Jews for Jesus is more of an organization and "Messianic Jews" would be the correct name for the "sect". Unless you don't consider Jews for Jesus to be a sub-organization of Messianic Jews?
If you feel the article is missing information, then you could add it. Laella (talk) 07:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First off, let me say that I am now converted to the civility camp. I will interact with civility. :) As for what we have been discussing, I know that the talk page is not for posting personal opinions. However, when creating an article, the choice of which reliable sources to use, and in what volume, is inherently a subjective exercise. Similar to how one can selectively pull phrases from the Bible to justify pretty much any belief, one can also selectively pull from reliable sources to slant an article in many different ways. I would like to thus offer these observations about the article, with a view to taking a balanced approach when pulling from reliable sources. One odd thing about this article is that it repeatedly states that Jews for Jesus is not a sect of Judaism, when Jews for Jesus never claims to be a sect of Judaism. (I challenge you to find any place on the Jews for Jesus website where they say "We are a sect of Judaism".) So why include a negative for which there is no positive? This seems illogical. It strikes me that the activities of Jews for Jesus are identical to the activities of the original apostles of Jesus, who were Jewish and proselytized to their fellow Jews. Here is what I think is really happening. Mainline Protestantism is dying rapidly. Catholicism is also in decline. The only branch of Christianity that exhibits any vibrancy in America is evangelicalism. Judaism lacks a full-fledged equivalent of evangelicalism, so it is particularly at risk of losing adherents to evangelical Christianity, especially through Jews for Jesus. This upsets many Jews in America who want to continue the sharp distinction between the two faiths. They view Judaism as under attack and in decline. Although Christianity and Judaism are in fact intertwined in a complex way at their origins, many modern Jews wish to draw a sharp distinction between the two faiths. However, drawing this sharp distinction raises a number of problematic issues: How can it be wrong for Christians (i.e. Jews for Jesus) to engage in activities identical to what the original and immediate followers of Jesus did? Why is it wrong for Christians (i.e. Jews for Jesus) to proselytize to Jews, but OK to proselytize to all other non-Christian religions? Isn’t this in fact granting some special status to Judaism that it does not deserve, and by implication denigrating the other religions? In sum, I think the authors of this article should tread very carefully when composing this article. I think my comments summarize the origin of a lot of the negative feedback on this talk page regarding the neutrality of the article. --Westwind273 (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The negative feedback you are responding to was about this article from 5 to 10 years ago. It was a very different article that they were talking about.
If you feel that there is information missing you can add it, but it's not correct to remove information because you don't like it. The information about Jews for Jesus's controversies are relevant, reasonable and cited. Your observations above are really not relevant to this article. That type of speculative discussion about religious beliefs might have a better place on a different type of website. Laella (talk) 04:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From their website, an example of Jews for Jesus justifying themselves as a Jewish organization. (can we abbreviate it as JFJ?)
https://jewsforjesus.org/jewish-resources/community/messianic-jews/
As I said before, there is a an argument to be made that JFJ is not precisely a sect, but that "Messianic Judaism" would be the sect and that JFJ is an organization under that umbrella. I think the confusion is that JFJ was instrumental in creating modern "Messianic Judaism", and has become so tightly associated, that it has been used as a synonym. The article from JFJ's website says basically as much.
If that is a concern, I would agree that the article could be clarified to keep the position that JFJ is an organization, although I will defer to you on that point.
That JFJ is controversial is not something that you can explain away with theology. JFJ was created to target one group, and that group resents being the target. It is an important point - JFJ doesn't do much besides target that group. Laella (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not correct for you to include information in the article simply because you like it. Your comments are not relevant to this article. The words “Jew” and “Jewish” have two meanings: (1) Jewish ethnicity (culture, customs), and (2) Jewish faith. The word “Judaism” has only one meaning: the Jewish religion. JFJ calls themselves Jewish (in the sense of ethnicity, culture, customs), but nowhere do they claim that their faith is a sect of Judaism, nor that their organization belongs to a sect of Judaism. Your speculation about JFJ claiming to be a sect of Judaism would be more relevant to a different website, not Wikipedia. I agree that JFJ is controversial, but that doesn’t mean the Wikipedia article should state things that are not true (i.e. JFJ claiming to be a sect of Judaism). Yes JFJ targets Jews. Mormon missionaries in France (e.g. Mitt Romney) target the French. Evangelical missionaries in Nigeria target Nigerians. This does not mean the Wikipedia article should imply untruths about JFJ. I agree that many Jews (including Jewish leaders) react negatively to JFJ, and it is fine for the article to state so in the Criticism section. But that section should not imply that JFJ is claiming to be a sect of Judaism, because they do not. --Westwind273 (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As an aside, I would mention that all Christians consider their faith as the fulfillment of Judaism. It is why the Christian Bible contains the entirety of the Tanakh (the Old Testament). This is not in any way unique to JFJ. --Westwind273 (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Change "Sect" to "Organization" and other changes & cleanups[edit]

I suggest that the second sentence of the introduction be changed to "Jews for Jesus is not considered a Jewish organization by any mainstream Jewish authorities." --Westwind273 (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with this. I think that all references to sect should be changed to organization. I can do this later tonight, or you can go for it and do it now Laella (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No hurry. Take your time. Thank you. --Westwind273 (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to offer some observations and advice as we all work to improve this article over time. As we work with reliable sources, two key examples of sources which are being considered as reliable are: (1) The JVL page, which the article introduction references https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jews-for-jesus, and (2) the JFJ page that you (Laella) referenced https://jewsforjesus.org/jewish-resources/community/messianic-jews/. I would like to point out that although these are being used as reliable sources, both pages contain multiple statements that are demonstrably false. Thus my point about use of “reliable sources” as being a subjective exercise. Probably the most egregious falsehoods on the JVL page are when it ascribes solely to JFJ certain beliefs which are in fact held by all evangelicals. Just to take one example, JVL states that JFJ uses the Old Testament (OT) as evidence that Jesus is the Messiah, whereas evangelicals use the New Testament (NT). In fact, both JFJ and standard evangelicals use both the OT and NT as proof that Jesus is the Messiah. Turning to the JFJ page on Messianic Jews, JFJ claims as history certain things for which there is no objective historical proof, or in fact there is historical proof to the contrary. Without getting into the nitty gritty details, the JFJ page goes through historical gymnastics to try to demonstrate that there always existed throughout history groups that we would call Jewish Christians, when in fact Jewish Christianity stemming directly from the ministry of Jesus lasted only as long as the Ebionites and the original Nazarenes at most. When you have both sides issuing falsehoods like this, creating a balanced and factual Wikipedia article can be very difficult. This is why I ask future authors to tread very carefully. My basic point is that things are not black and white. There are many shades of gray. Yes, JFJ tends to maintain many Jewish practices while being evangelical Christians. But so do certain Christians. Most Christians don’t celebrate seder meals, but in fact there are a large number of Catholics and Protestants who do celebrate seder. It is not forbidden by the Christian faith, and many consider it a way to get in touch with the Jewish roots of Christianity. Furthermore, there are some Christian denominations who are even more Jewish than JFJ. Armstrongism comes to mind, where they do not celebrate Christmas/Easter (pagan origins), do not eat pork/shellfish, do not believe in the Trinity, and worship on Saturday not Sunday. As I mentioned before, Christianity and Judaism have origins which are deeply intertwined, and blanket statements of criticism often destroy neutrality in the article. --Westwind273 (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As we go through the article, we can come to terms with each section and its sources. We are already "starting at the top" so to speak, so we can just work our way down.
If you have a suggestion for the order of sections, or changes to the sections? (not the content of each section, just a "table of contents") maybe we can find some good examples of similar organizations? Starting with the right structure may make the article more coherent.
While you are interested in debating the truth of JFJ's or their opponent's beliefs, we will need to be careful not to include your apologetics or observations. If JFJ gets some things 'wrong', it is ultimately an article about them, and not how they should be. This would need to include beliefs that you feel are wrong. It should be fine to state that JFJ believes "X", in contrast to the more common belief "Y".
Laella (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I agree that on both sides (both mainstream Jewish authorities and JFJ), even if their beliefs are demonstrably false by other reliable sources, they are nonetheless the beliefs of both sides, and therefore should be represented as such in the article. But in this environment, we just have to be very careful not to go overboard in explaining criticisms in the article, for example "sect of Judaism" vs "Jewish organization". This is not something that urgently needs to be changed, but rather something to think about as we go forward: My main remaining concern is that the "Opposition and criticism" section is not really describing the true nature of the opposition and criticism. The "Mainstream Judaism" section seems to focus on whether JFJ is Judaism or not, whereas the real problem that major Jewish organizations have with JFJ is (as you have described) that they react negatively to being specifically targeted by an evangelical group. The true sense of the JVL page is negative reaction to being targeted, not whether JFJ is a sect of Judaism or not. (In fact, the JVL page does not even contain the word "sect".) Likewise, in the Christian and Other sections, the actions described are general goodwill outreach from mainstream Christianity to Judaism, not actions that are specifically critical of JFJ. In particular, mainstream evangelicalism is largely supportive of JFJ's activities (primarily because JFJ is evangelical, albeit with somewhat more Jewish emphasis than standard evangelicalism). --Westwind273 (talk) 11:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The criticism of JFJ as not being a Jewish sect are actually criticisms of Messianic Judaism. The issue being that the terms JFJ and Messianic Judaism are sometimes used interchangeably due to their intertwined development. This can be clarified. That actually might be a useful clarification for the intro paragraph, because it is a very common confusion.
The Criticism section needs to be better organized. There are several criticisms of JFJ, beyond targeting Jews. While I understand not wanting to make this page a comprehensive explanation of every bad thought anyone ever had about JFJ, There are some main categories of criticisms that need to be included. If we make it as a list, then the in-depth explanations of some criticisms can be linked to, rather than explained here.
If you look at the page Chosen_People_Ministries the box on the right that says "This article is part of a series on Messianic Judaism" - it seems like that should be included on the JFJ page as well. I am not sure if it is something we can just drop in, or if it is something that is organized from somewhere else? Do you know?

I think that the outline of the page needs to be improved. Following other similar pages, I suggest the following structure: (I included all sections that are in the current article) I welcome your feedback on this.

  1. History
    1. Background
    2. Founder/Leaders (links to pages of people)
  2. Current
    1. Activities
      1. Evangelism
      2. Funding and Outreach
    2. Beliefs
      1. Differences with other Messianics
      2. Differences with other Christians
  3. Criticisms
    1. Opposition
      1. Jewish
      2. Christian
      3. OTher
    2. Controversies
    3. Litigation

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Laella (talk • contribs) 19:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other than the content of the Introduction and the Criticism section, I think your outline is fine. I know that editors should compromise with each other regarding content, but in order to avoid seeming deceptive about my view of the article content, I want to explain how I would change the article, if I had my druthers. I would change the final sentence of the first paragraph (introduction) to say "The evangelical efforts of Jews for Jesus have garnered a negative reaction from some Jews and Jewish organizations." Then, I would revise the content of the "Opposition and criticism" section. The "Mainstream Judaism" section here is misguided in its intent. The main point is that Jews and Jewish organizations have exhibited a negative reaction to being targeted by the evangelical Jews for Jesus. This negative reaction should be the main point of this section, not content that bickers over whether Jews for Jesus is Judaism (a claim Jews for Jesus never makes). Secondly, I would delete the "Christian" and "Other" sections as not being notable. The so-called opposition to JFJ here is really just some mainstream Christian organizations reaching out to Judaism, not specific criticism of JFJ. Mainstream Christianity has largely ignored JFJ, and evangelical Christianity (i.e. all those Trump supporters) have largely been supportive of JFJ. As evidence, go to the website of the major evangelical publication Christianity Today and search on Jews for Jesus. Additionally, it is important to keep in mind that a major part of Jewish enmity for JFJ is really just liberal Jewish enmity for evangelical Christianity. All in all, I feel a balanced article would be rewritten along these lines. As is, the article reads like someone has an ax to grind against JFJ. --Westwind273 (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I appreciate your calm recognition of your bias.
The problem with your suggested sentence is the exact same problem with the original sentence you had issue with - "The evangelical efforts of Jews for Jesus have garnered a negative reaction from some Jews and Jewish organizations." - It's not "some" - it is "all" and you are trying to soften that by using imprecise language. (and please do not try to argue that because the word "Jews" is in there and that some Jews are JFJ it should be "some" - the context obviously implies practicing / non-apostate Jews).
If you prefer "The evangelical efforts of Jews for Jesus have garnered a negative reaction from all Jewish organizations." I would probably agree to that, although I am not sure it's a significant improvement over the sentence it replaces.
Looking at the bigger picture, your idea that the negative reaction to JFJ by Jews is only because of being targeted by JFJ, is incorrect. And, the distaste Jews have for JFJ is not "Jewish enmity for evangelical Christianity" You are projecting your incorrect assumptions onto Jews and Jewish organizations, and misunderstanding the issue. (Most Jewish organizations and synagogues participate in inter-religious activities and have a decent relationship with many evangelical Christian organizations on an institutional level).
The arguments about "JFJ is not mainstream Judaism" is mostly about claims made by Messianic Judaism - which does make that argument explicitly. And JFJ is not only an organization under the umbrella of Messianic Judaism, it was highly instrumental in the development of the current Messianic Judaism sect. I agree that they are "seperating" and that the distinction should be clarified.
Although JFJ has obviously made effort in trying to clean up their image, they do have a history of using deceptive tactics. In practice, they still do use deceptive tactics, even if they are not spelling out their methods on their website. The main Jewish argument against JFJ is about the deceptive tactics, many of which do revolve around trying to convince people they are more Jewish than they really are. It is a lot to separate out, but I do agree that this page is not the right one to explain the controversy around Messianic Judaism in general. It should be selective to JFJ controversies only - but there is more to the controversy than resentment of being targeted for proselytizing.
I do feel there is a place for Christian and other controversies, but it could probably be simplified to a single section.
While you read this article as "like someone has an ax to grind against JFJ" - I read it as overly favorable to JFJ. The only negative information is under the "Controversy" header, so all negative issues are clearly marked. The rest of the article reads like it was copied directly from one of their pamphlets. Of course, you don't want to see criticisms of an organization you clearly admire. I do feel that the criticisms are poorly explained. Just posting a few statements, rather than giving an explanation of what the main criticisms are. Maybe it will sound less critical to you, if the criticisms are explained.
I do see that JFJ proselytizing and criticisms of that activity are all JFJ has (at least in this article). You favor them, so maybe it would feel more balanced to you, if you explained some positive things they do, other than proselytizing Jews? Do they do anything else?
--Laella (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I likewise appreciate your calm recognition of your clearly biased view with regard to this article. You are in fact projecting your incorrect assumptions onto Jews, Jewish organizations, and JFJ. You have a strong desire to see criticisms of an organization (JFJ) that you clearly detest. You are trying to add vitriol to the article by saying that “all” Jews react negatively to JFJ. (Have you polled each and every Jew in America?) That being said, I could compromise by deleting “some”, and just saying something like “Jews have generally reacted negatively to JFJ”. Frankly speaking, there are a lot of Jews who are indifferent to JFJ. In 2016, 71% of Jews voted for Hillary, and 81% of white evangelicals voted for Trump. Clearly Jews and white evangelicals are at the opposite ends of the political spectrum, although there is some “strange bedfellows” agreement on Israel. But overall, this is not a “decent relationship”. What you condescendingly call “deceptive tactics”, JFJ would call their earnestly held religious beliefs. They believe that many aspects of the Jewish faith persist into Christianity. Looking at the history of Christianity, this is clearly a reasonable position. Jesus was a Jew. All of his followers were Jews. Judaism at that time was quite diverse, not the consolidated rabbinic Judaism of today. Were the Essenes Jews? What about the Pharisees? The Sadducees? The Samaritans? The “Jesus Movement” (it was not yet called Christianity) was originally seen as a sect of Judaism. As I have said previously, the dogma of virtually all denominations of Christianity is that the Christian faith is the fulfillment of Judaism. JFJ simply emphasizes this more than other groups. Moreover, proselytizing is what all evangelicals do, not just JFJ. JFJ does as many positive things as any other evangelical church. It is quite common within evangelicalism for believers of a certain ethnicity to focus on outreach to their own ethnic group. Many evangelical mega-churches in the US have Hispanics doing Spanish language outreach to other Hispanics. JFJ is simply proselytizing to their own ethnicity; this is very common across all of American evangelicalism. It is quite condescending of you to ask if JFJ “does anything positive”. Why hold JFJ to a standard that no other evangelicals are held to? In sum, this article is not a playground for you to engage in attacks on JFJ. That is not the purpose of a Wikipedia article. Your crusade to make this article into an attack piece on JFJ has rendered it one of the worst articles on Wikipedia, due to extreme bias.
Finally, as an aside, you are grossly mistaken about my biases. I actually have a strong dislike for the main aspects of evangelicalism (including JFJ), in particular their beliefs of sola fide, biblical inerrancy, and the strong white evangelical support for Trump. But I have had a number of evangelical friends over the years, and so I am sensitive to Wikipedia’s liberal bias being played out as a hit piece article on JFJ. --Westwind273 (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I see that your resolve to be civil has had a setback. As it is not relevant to this article, I am not going to engage. Please keep comments relevant. Laella (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is so ironic. I have only said back to you exactly what you said to me, no more. It was in fact you who led this discussion into an uncivil space. I engaged in a civil manner, and you chose to be uncivil. When you chose to be uncivil, I simply said back to you exactly what you said to me. You claim to be civil, and yet you initiate unprovoked uncivil attacks. And then you claim the other person is being uncivil. You have an astounding lack of self-awareness. Look back at our discussion here and in the previous section. Who first accused the other of determining content based on whether one "likes it"? You. Who first accused the other's observations of being irrelevant? You. Who first accused the other of having bias? You. Who first accused the other of basing suggested article improvements on whether they do or do not like JFJ? You. Who first accused the other of purposely attempting to slant ("soften") the article? You. Who first accused the other of being uncivil and having a setback? You. I can see that your extreme lack of self-awareness prevents you from being civil, all the while accusing the other person of being uncivil. As your most recent comment is completely irrelevant to the article, I will not respond any further. Please try to make your comments relevant to this article and stop commenting on the civility of others, when it is in fact you who initiate the incivility. All this simply reinforces my belief that you have an ax to grind against JFJ which blinds you to considering the views of others, and your severe lack of self-awareness prevents you from having any relevant discussion. I can recognize what is and isn't civility, but you unfortunately cannot. In your view, whatever you say is civil, but when someone uses the same words back at you, it becomes "uncivil". There is no "setback" that I have had, but you have never even progressed to the point of being able to tell whether you yourself are acting in a civil manner. You can't have a setback because you never got to the point of being able to see incivility in yourself in the first place. Quite disgusting. You are unable to counter any of the points I made, so you simply revert into accusing others of incivility and go crying to the moderators when your own words are used back at you. It is sad to see that you are unable to escape your cocoon of lack of self-awareness. --Westwind273 (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I went to the moderator because you called me a Nazi.
It's not a word I used, which is clear from the history of the chat.
You need to remove your most recent opinion of me from the discussion.
Laella (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is clear from the history of the chat is that everything that I have said recently (that you claim is uncivil) is simply me using your own words back at you. You are completely oblivious to incivility in yourself, and yet quick to accuse others of it. You need to remove your most recent opinion of me ("resolve to be civil has had a setback") from the discussion. --Westwind273 (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Major changes - most not good[edit]

The large changes, dropping lots of accepted information and adding a lot of propaganda need to be discussed on the talk page. Most of this article is not acceptable as is at the moment. The point of this article should not be as a propaganda piece for Jews for Jesus, and you can not leave out criticisms. Many of the changes are to things that have been discussed over many years to come to a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laella (talk • contribs) 18:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC) I agree, this should be a protected page. Too much promotional and biased editing. Yoleaux (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No balance of information on this page[edit]

Scanning through the page, I was surprised at the bias against this organization. I know it is a controversial topic, but this clearly violates Wikipedia’s neutrality standards. There should be a balance of information. Because of that, I’ve added a couple relevant quotes to the article to help restore some of that balance. I have also removed/edited a couple statements that have logical fallacies, which I will explain in detail below:

If anyone disagrees with any of the changes I made, before undoing my changes, please respond to me on the talk page and let’s discuss this. I intend to be very responsive on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AEditing3 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories