Jump to content

Talk:Supersessionism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dow Marmur source

[edit]

The article has been using a speech by Dow Marmur as a reference. This is a problem because:

  1. A speech is effectively a self-published source.
  2. An accurate transcription of a speech is generally not fact-checked
  3. A self-published source can be used if from an acknowledged expert, but within the speech itself, Marmur distances himself from expertise on the topic ("This presentation has few scholarly pretensions, first of all, because the subject isn't really my field of academic interest, and secondly, because there's nothing I may have to say today that this audience doesn't know much better.")

Add on top of that, I cannot find the specific claim being made in the source, that some Jews are offended by the belief in supersessionism (that they are troubled by the attempts and goals of converting Jews, yes, but that's a different statement.) As such, I'm removing that supposed source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Covenant theology

[edit]

New Covenant theology doesn't seem to be an alternative to supersessionism but an example of it. 73.87.154.155 (talk) 11:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of a middle ground between dispensationalism and covenant theology. So it is an alternative. —Confession0791 talk 13:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. I think this is a category error. Dispensationalism is a framework that historically opposes supersessionism, covenant theology (incl. new covenant) is a framework that generally supports it. Dirkwillems (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I assume it was not supposed to refer to the current political entity State of Israel

הראש (talk) 09:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is referring to the nation of Israel as a people including those Jews living in the State of Israel JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

unclear antecedent

[edit]

Article states, "Islam teaches that it is the final and most authentic expression of Abrahamic monotheism, superseding both Judaism and Christianity." Not sure what "it" is supposed to refer to here—the antecedent from the preceding sentence should be "supercessionism," but I suspect it is meant to refer to Islam itself. Needs clarification. 98.195.219.14 (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph could probably stand some cleanup, but I think that taken in context it's evident that "it" refers to Islam. But it would be awkward to say "Islam teaches that Islam is the final and most authentic..." If you can think of some better way to phrase it, do so. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]