Talk:Proselytization and counter-proselytization of Jews

I thought it would be a good idea to start this pageUser:Yoshiah_ap

I am going to give the benefit of the doubt on this one and challenge you to substantiate the claim rather than list this page on wikipedia:VFD. GrazingshipIV 05:18, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

If you are reffering to the remark that organizations such as Jews for Jesus started the Hebrew Christianity movement, I changed to mention that they are involved in it instead.User:Yoshiah_ap--Yoshiah ap 06:56, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just what is wrong with this page? It is completely factual: most traditional Jewish communities will resist campaigns by Jews for J. It might be more than slightly POV to mention their budget, but:

• There is ongoing missionary activity towards Jews worldwide
• Hebrew Christianity is not considered Judaism by virtually all Jews who are not associated with that movement
• No argument exists to have this page VfD'd

JFW | T@lk 22:37, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Since GrazingshipIV is no longer active in this page, and has not listed what his objection is, I will remove the "disputed" status of it. --Yoshiah ap 01:21, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why remove the Netzarim site? Have a look at these [1] [2] [3] pages The point about [netzarim.co.il the netzarim site] is that they are orthodox Jews they are torah observant no torah-observant orthodox rabbi has called them apostate and they are totally anti-missionary in a big way. I will not say anything bad about them because I do not want to be accused of leshon ha-ra do you? The site is as relevant to anti-missionary work as any anti-missionary Chabadnik site and for obvious reasons MUCH more so. I know you have had a difficult time defending Karaites as Jews Yoshiah, so one would think you would be very careful to hide them away and forget about them. All the best Zestauferov 17:51, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

P.S. they do not preach him as the messiah they preach him as the diametrically opposed 666 anti-chrst. How did you miss that?Zestauferov 17:57, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Hi Zestauferov, I'm not saying if (or if not) they are Jews. I'm saying that they wouldn't be appropriate as an anti-missionary link. 2 of those links you gave me only confirmed what I thought, because they denounce anti-missionaries and incompetant failures. However, wouldn't have a problem if we made categories for extrenal links. One for anti-missionary sites, one for responses to anti-missionary sites, and if you don't feel the netzarim site would be appropriate for the 2nd one, a category for sites that are 'in-between' the two positions.--Josiah 02:20, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why not appropriate? I forced myself to have another read. They are not denouncing anti-missionary work per se, they just believe that they have a better style of anti-missionary approach. Also they are legitimate orthodox Jews until the Sanhedrein is reformed to make a ruling about them.Zestauferov 10:08, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Only with their methods?! They blame anti-missionaries for "Alienating 90% of the Jewish community from Orthodox Judaism, More than half of Jewish children marrying non-Jews and assimilating, and The statistical prediction that the American Jewish community will complete its determined self-destruction within a generation or two." Again, I have never said whether they are, or are not, Jews. But they cannot be categorized as anti-missionaries, and I believe they would agree.--Josiah 02:15, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ok, the article is literally anti-missionary in name only because it is about Jewish attemtpts to counter christian missions targeting Jews. If the article was broader then of course literally the netzarim are missionary in that it seems they want to make the whole world Jewish. But in the sense that the article is currently presented, the netzarim cannot be called missionary becasue first and formost they do not target heterodox Judaism, and they like all the groups being discussed are very active in Jewish retrieval. They do not care whether the Jew being retrieved becomes orthodox under another beth din or whether they decide to join the netzarim beth din because their main point is arresting the attempts of christian missionary work targeted at Jews and to encourage Jews back into the folds of orthodox rabbinical tradition. I am just wondering if there is some other reason for wanting to exclude them. Since you are not accusing them of being non-orthodox Jews how can we say their attempts at bringing Jews away from christianity and back into the fold of Judaism are not anti-missionary? Thankyou for taking tome to debate this with me.Zestauferov 05:42, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• I don't think they would classify themselves as anti-missionary, that's why I suggested making 3 categories of external links - one for anti-misssionary organizations, one for counter-anti-missionary organizations, and one for those somewhere in between.--Josiah 03:26, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well I suppose the best solution would be to write to them and ask them. But be warned that they are not really a very friendly bunch from what I have heard. More like Beth Shammai than Beth Hillel.Zestauferov 08:19, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• I know a person affiliated with the them. I could ask him, if you wanted.--Josiah 14:21, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This page should be moved to Counter-Missionary

The Counter-Missionary groups call themselves that, not Anti-Missionary; it is the groups they oppose which typically call them "Anti-Missionary". The reason is that the Counter-Missionaries view themselves as countering missionary activities and materials, not "anti" the missionaries themselves. Jayjg 21:14, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Semantics, if you ask me, but i'll change it. In San Diego, the local counter/anti-missionary groups that I've had experienced identify themselves as 'anti-missionaries' on their posters. The anti-missionary Yahoo group has nearly 400 members, whereas the counter-missionary group only has 30.--Josiah 04:11, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ideas for expansion

Since I added the {stub} tag, here are some questions it might be good for the article to address.

• When was the "Faith Strengthened" tract written, and when was it translated into Latin?
• Do counter-missionaries have a formal organization, or is it more of a grass-roots movement?
• Are there any estimates of how many active counter-missionaries there are? In comparison with active Jews for Jesus (and members of similar groups)?
• How much do counter-missionaries spend on their activities? (To compare with the $1 billion spent by "Hebrew Christians" trying to convert the Jews.)
• Any estimates of how many or few Jews are converting to Christianity? Of how many Christians are converting to Judaism?

These are just some ideas. I'm sure there are other interesting things to know about them as well. Wesley 16:02, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Polemic or Apologetic?

Is Counter-Missionary literature generally polemic, apologetic, or both? —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. More polemic than apologetic, I would say, but you do get both. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It depends on the audience being addressed. If it is (directly or indirectly) being adressed to missionaries, it is more likely to be a polemic. But if it is designed to strengthen the convinctions of Jews, then it's more likely to be apologetic. When I work on Counter-Missionary material (such as on my Counter-Missionary Blog) I try to keep it mostly apologetic because it's better to build than it is to destroy.--Josiah 07:01, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the illuminating answers. What about controversialist literature written against classical paganism (e.g. Against Apion) and Islam (e.g. Simon Duran's Keshet u-Magen)? Is this also called "Counter-Missionary"? —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I haven't read either of them, so I couldn't say. If the views being refuted were ones attempting to convince Jews that they were correct (i.e. proselyting) then yes, they could be classified as Counter-Missionary (though in today's context "Counter-Missionary" almost exclusively refers to Jewish rebuttals of Christian theology)--Josiah 00:55, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Against Apion is certainly not considered Counter-Missionary, though it's an apologetic work. I've never heard of Keshet u-Magen; I suspect it is too obscure to be called Counter-Missionary. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

'Against Apion' is a Christian work written to combat a famous pagan, Apion who wrote a counter-missionary work for pagans against Christianity. The work by Apion disappeared long ago, but 'Against Apion' has remained since it was "pro-Christian." To its credit, many of Apion's pagan arguments were included in the response. . . Early counter missionary efforts include the [Disputation at Barcelona a famous debate in the 13th century between RamBan (Nachmanides)and an apostate Jew in front of the King of Spain and the Karaite work Faith Strengthened written by Isaac Ben Abraham of Troki in the 16th century. User:Sophiee1