Talk:Jews for Jesus

Jews for Jesus and the Ebionites

A lot of the statements in this article directly contradict the Wikipedia article on the Ebionites. After all, if it is impossible to be a Jew who believes in the divinity of Jesus, then who were the Ebionites? Weren't they exactly that? This article reeks of Jew vs Christian bigotry, similar to what caused the cancellation of the popular TV show "Bridget Loves Bernie" in the 1970's. This bigotry has a long history in the United States, and it is disappointing to see it continued in this article. Westwind273 (talk) 14:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The Cross of Christ

Replace or add the Cross symbol to your title name "Jews f✡️r Jesus✝️". 99.179.126.247 (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

It is their logo so you need to take it up with the group directly not wikipedia. Erp (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Second paragraph of the lead

I would like to propose revising the second paragraph of the lead. I think I can improve it with my proposed changes. Right now it is not really a summary of the article. Instead as it now stands it is a theological and sociological argument. And it is way too granular for a lead. For example, the paragraph goes from one sentence mentioning the founder's Christian credentials, to another sentence briefly discussing one aspect of the organization's statement of faith, to another sentence mentioning the Supreme Court of Israel, to a final sentence debating whether Jesus was a good teacher, a false prophet, or a failed Messiah. It's a mish-mash and not what we want in a WP lead. Plus the tone of the paragraph is tendentious, and thus not neutral. Some of the content of this second paragraph could go into the body of the article, if it is not already there, such as under the section Jewish community's perception. But the current version violates both WP:MOS:LEAD and WP:NPOV.

Here is my proposed revision for the second paragraph in the lead:

Jewish religious and communal authorities do not recognize Jews for Jesus as a Jewish religious organization and regard its belief in Jesus as the Messiah as incompatible with Judaism. It is viewed as a Christian missionary organization. Jews for Jesus, however, maintains that belief in Jesus is compatible with Jewish identity. The organization's relationship to Judaism and its reception within Jewish communities have been subjects of longstanding controversy.

I welcome suggestions or comments. Ungathering (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the lead reads wonkily. But that information is worth retaining in the article, just somewhere in the body. Perhaps under Public's perception and Controversies? The last sentence of the current second paragraph can be reused as a background claim under Beliefs.

Also, your suggestion repeats that the organization is viewed as a Christian missionary one, but the first paragraph of the lead already opens up with that (supposedly per WP:DUE). — EmoryNB ^{(they/them) talk contribs} 13:06, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@EmoryNB: Thanks for your comments. I agree that most of the information in the current second paragraph is worth keeping elsewhere in the article. I'll think about how to do that.

And yes, I see your point that my proposed second paragraph does repeat (in different words) some of the same ideas as the first paragraph of the lead. I'm open to different wording. I'm also open to deleting the second paragraph completely, if others feel strongly about that. But my first choice would be the paragraph I proposed. It is focused on the organization's relationship with the Jewish community, which isn't really addressed in the first paragraph, and is arguably very important for both Jews for Jesus and the Jewish community at large. I think my proposed wording gives due weight to important issues and it falls within WP:NPOV Ungathering (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh I didn't argue your wording isn't WP:NPOV, I think it's fine. I'd replace the current second paragraph with yours, only removing this sentence to not duplicate a claim needlessly: It is viewed as a Christian missionary organization.

I'll work on moving the claims it currently makes to the article body tomorrow. Thanks — EmoryNB ^{(they/them) talk contribs} 17:33, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@EmoryNB

OK, thanks for the clarification. Since no one else seems to be commenting on the second paragraph issue, I will make my proposed changes along with your suggested edits.

And thanks also for moving the claims to appropriate places in the article body. Ungathering (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, done now. I replaced mentioning the Supreme court of Israel with a humble reference onto "governing bodies of the State of Israel". Another claim was that "there is only one mention of the Old Testament in [their] 'Statement of Faith'"; I removed it as superfluous.

Responsible disclosure. I kept this source in the article as a result of my move but had not accessed it:

• Levine, Amy-Jill (2006). The misunderstood Jew : the Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus. San Francisco: Harper-Collins. ISBN 978-0-060-78966-4.

It was used to back up this claim: Instead, some Jews believe that Jesus was a good Jewish teacher, other Jews believe that he was a false prophet, for certain, most Jews believe that he was a failed messiah claimant. I verified it instead by the other source that was cited for this same sentence. The book is 263 pages BTW, somebody should add page numbers... — EmoryNB ^{(they/them) talk contribs} 17:02, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I will look at the Levine book to see if there are specific page numbers to verify the claim. Ungathering (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

The Levine book does verify the claim of Jesus as a good Jewish teacher (pp. 21-52), but it does not really verify the other two claims. So I will edit that section accordingly. Ungathering (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

References

Café Basimta section -- Ben David / ceramics studio sourcing (continued from User_talk:Erp)

Following up here per Erp's suggestion, continuing from a discussion on his talk page about a recent edit to the "Jerusalem coffee shop open on Shabbat" section.

Quick summary: I added a line establishing that Yoel Ben David, who runs Café Basimta, has held a senior role in the organization's missionary training in Israel, and a closing sentence noting that his wife separately runs a nearby ceramics studio (Shape Shift Ceramics), which is reported to serve outreach purposes as well. This was reverted, partly over an edit-marking issue and partly over source reliability.

On the edit-marking point: that's already been addressed on Erp's talk page. I mismarked a substantive edit as minor, which was an error on my part, not an attempt to slip it past other editors, and I won't do that going forward. Sorry, but I am new to this and don't know all the rules yet!

On the wording point: I've also dropped the earlier "ordained Anglican priest" phrasing that was flagged as unclear - the current wording below just describes his role within the organization directly.

On the source: my citation is Olam Katan, an Israeli religious-Zionist Shabbat newspaper, byline Adiel Gilad, dated July 8, 2026. It does have a Hebrew Wikipedia article, linked above, so anyone can evaluate it directly.

The proposed additions:

The café is run by Yoel Ben David, who has held a senior role in the organization's missionary training in Israel.

(inserted after the first sentence)

While Ben David runs the café, his wife separately operates a nearby ceramics studio called Shape Shift Ceramics; both are described as active in the organization's outreach work in Jerusalem, with the studio said to be used to draw people closer to Christianity as part of the same effort.<ref>{{cite web |last=Gilad |first=Adiel |title=מלכודת הדבש של המיסיון: בתי הקפה שפועלים לנצר יהודים |trans-title=The Missionary's Honey Trap: The Coffee Shops Working to Convert Jews |url=https://www.okn.co.il/israel/48352/ |website=Olam Katan |language=he |date=July 8, 2026 |access-date=August 17, 2026}}</ref>

I'd like to restore these. Open to feedback if there's a specific concern. Toras-chochom123 (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

What is the evidence that Olam Katan is a reliable source? It seems to be a Haredi newspaper aimed at a Haredi audience, and, I'm not sure it is cited much at all in Wikipedia (English, Hebrew wikipedia might be different) so it has no track record. Is the ceramic workshop significant enough to be mentioned by Haaretz or The Times of Israel or The Jerusalem Post? I note the Times of Israel ref already mentions "Yoel Ben David, the cafe’s operator as well as Jews for Jesus’s top official in Jerusalem" Erp (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

On the reliability question -- I checked how often Olam Katan is cited on Hebrew Wikipedia via Special:LinkSearch, and it does have a real track record: citations appear across roughly two dozen mainspace articles (e.g., Route 45, List of outposts, Menashe Regional Council, and several Judea and Samaria-related and biographical articles), used without apparent challenge. Hebrew Wikipedia doesn't have a formal reliability list the way WP:RSP works here, but this suggests it's an outlet the Hebrew Wikipedia community treats as a normal, usable source in this subject area.

Given that, I'd like to restore the ceramics studio sentence with the Olam Katan citation as originally proposed:

Ben David's wife separately operates a nearby ceramics studio called Shape Shift Ceramics, which it is claimed is used to draw people closer to Christianity as part of the same outreach effort.<ref>{{cite web |last=Gilad |first=Adiel |title=מלכודת הדבש של המיסיון: בתי הקפה שפועלים לנצר יהודים |trans-title=The Missionary's Honey Trap: The Coffee Shops Working to Convert Jews |url=https://www.okn.co.il/israel/48352/ |website=Olam Katan |language=he |date=July 8, 2026 |access-date=August 17, 2026}}</ref>

Toras-chochom123 (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

So is anyone loudly protesting the ceramics studio like some are the coffee shop? It really doesn't seem noteworthy and the only source is very niche (none of the other articles mention it). Erp (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

1987 LAX v. JfJ controversy?

The Controversies section of this article opens up with a subsection titled 1987 – Freedom of speech saying the following:

In Board of Airport Commissioners of Los Angeles v. Jews for Jesus, Inc. the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Jews for Jesus in a free speech case against the Los Angeles International Airport.

And that's it. What controversy? What did the Supreme Court rule on? Nothing.

The linked article about the case itself has this in its background section:

In July 1984, Howard Snyder, a minister with the organization Jews for Jesus, was distributing religious leaflets in the Central Terminal Area at Los Angeles International Airport. An officer with the Department of Airports told Snyder that his activities violated a resolution adopted by the Board of Airport Commissioners and requested that he leave or be subject to legal action by the City. Snyder left the airport and Jews for Jesus later sued to challenge the constitutionality of the resolution.

But that article does not feature anything on the public reaction to the case, or anything else that could be summarized inside this one as an example of controversy. I also couldn't find (online) sources discussing the controversy of the decision. The only (documented) controversy with this seems to be that the city of Los Angeles wasn't too keen on a ruling against them, but that's kind of how courts work?..

This case does seem notable, but I'm not sure if it was controversial. Any help would be appreciated. — EmoryNB ^{(they/them) talk contribs} 08:27, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

@EmoryNB You are right that the 1987 LAX v. JFJ case was notable but not controversial. I think it should be removed from the Controversies section, but at the same time there probably needs to be a link somewhere in the JFJ article to Board of Airport Commissioners of Los Angeles v. Jews for Jesus, Inc.. But where? Perhaps one or two sentences in the History section? Ungathering (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Not sure if it's relevant to the organization's history specifically. It seems like giving out religious flyers at US airports was common among many segregations back in the day, especially Christian Evangelicals, but this case just established legal precedent for it... somewhat.

The way it could be placed to also not be out-of-place is maybe to mention that Jews for Jesus was responsible for such first amendment activities at airports, including LAX, and fought for that right too. — EmoryNB ^{(they/them) talk contribs} 16:54, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

It seems accurate to say that free speech is very important to Jews for Jesus. I found over 200 news articles on the topic of free speech and Jews for Jesus. Some discussed the LAX case, but many others touched on lots of other situations where Jews for Jesus sued municipalities (or other government entities) for the right to hand out their leaflets in public places. But I'm still not sure how to say this in the article. Perhaps the following proposed draft under a new section heading called First Amendment litigation? Jews for Jesus has been involved with a number of legal conflicts involving free speech and the First Amendment. These include leafleting at Los Angeles International Airport; caricaturing Jackie Mason in a pamphlet; handing out pamphlets in a public park on Long Island; a lawsuit from a Florida woman claiming that Jews for Jesus wrongly identified her as a Christian in its publications; the use of the Curious George image in Jews for Jesus leaflets. and a lawsuit filed by Jews for Jesus against a New York group of religious agencies who criticized the organization in a mass mailing. Ungathering (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

References