Talk:Supersessionism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Etymology

Based on my research, A. Roy Eckardt was the first writer to use the term "Supersessionism". Eckardt used the term in his 1972 article in the journal Midstream, reprinted in his book Your People, My People. This is reflected in a search in Google Books, and by the fact that a large majority of other materials mentioning it in the 1970's are by or about Eckardt. https://www.google.com/search?q=supersessionism&num=100&client=firefox-a&hs=8xr&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=sb&biw=1116&bih=519&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1900%2Ccd_max%3A1979&tbm=bks He defined it as the "Church's claim" that the Church superseded the Israelite nation's religious community as the community of true faith. To clarify, Eckardt opposed what he saw as the Church's belief, called Paul "supersessionist", (Eckardt, Jews and Christians: The Contemporary Meeting, Indiana University Press, 1986, p.124.) and wrote that "For the apostle, Israel's place in the present dispensation has been taken by the church."(Eckardt, Your People, My People, p. 61.)

What you are saying above and in your edit is the definition of WP:OR which is not allowed in WP. We need am actual reliable source that supports the claim. WP:OR is a very important and foundational policy - please do read it. Likewise, WP:VERIFY. We are editors here in WP, we are not ourselves authors and scholars who produce research. Jytdog (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Distinguishing "replacement" from "fulfillment"

As it stands, this article defines "supersessionism" as functionally equivalent to "replacement theology or fulfillment theology." According to many theologians writing on this issue, there is a distinction here that is being ignored.

The distinction goes something like this: On the one hand, there is "replacement theology" (also "substitution theology" or "displacement theology") which theorizes that the Christian "New Covenant," once inaugurated by Jesus, has rendered the "Old Covenant" (Sinai) null (either through God's revoking it or allowing it to expire -- cf. Kendall Soulen). On the other hand, there is the idea of "fulfillment," which does not render the preceding reality void.

Soulen (a Protestant Christian) writes, "The Christian notion of a fulfilled promise is frequently misunderstood (not least by Christians), so let me define the term using the words of the Swiss theologian Karl Barth: 'The promise is fulfilled does not mean: the promise comes to an end and is replaced by the actual thing promised. It means: the promise itself is now whole, complete, unambiguous, and hence already mighty.' To put it another way, a fulfilled promise is still a promise, but one that has been 'filled up' with the power of the promised future, so that the power spills over into the present. Christians believe that God's promise to Abraham -- indeed that all of God's promises -- have been 'filled up' in Jesus Christ" (p. 168). Soulen distinguishes this notion of fulfillment from replacement theology, which he equates with supersessionism: Past "Christians taught that God's covenant with the Jewish people was over, and that henceforth the church alone stood in its place. This teaching, often called supersessionsism today, became the Church's standard view on the matter, and it has prevailed among almost all branches of the Christian Church until recent times. Jews, I need hardly say, have never found the teaching of supersessionism convincing. Many Christians (including myself) now concur with them on this point" (p. 170).

Along with Soulen, Cardinal Walter Kasper (a Roman Catholic) distinguishes between the categories of "replacement" and "fulfillment". Recently, Kasper has written, "It also cannot be said that the covenant with Israel has been replaced by the New Covenant. The New Covenant for Christians is not the replacement (substitution), but the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. Both stand with each other in a relationship of promise or anticipation and fulfillment…[T]he New Covenant is the final reinterpretation promised by the prophets of the Old Covenant. It is the definitive yes and amen to all of God’s promises (2 Cor 1:20), but not their suspension or abolition” (p. xiv).

Now, there certainly are voices out there which argue that the distinction between the "replacement" and "fulfillment" ultimately collapses -- e.g. M. Moyaert and D. Pollefeyt, who state that "In our opinion, … it does not become clear how ‘fulfillment’ can be sufficiently distinguished from replacement… fulfillment thinking remains kindred to replacement thinking" (p. 165). However, this wikipedia article equates the two as if there were some kind of theological consensus on the matter. Prominent scholarly and ecclesial voices (I've only cited Soulen and Kasper, but plenty of others exist!) ought to be reflected in an article on this complex topic. Bpeters1 (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

References

RFC on pertinence of the land promise to supersession, in Protestant views

Given multiple indications of the centrality of the land covenant to supersession, I invite comment on the appropriateness of reference to this issue here. Thank you. I propose a restoration of this material [2], I acknowledge it might well be augmented. Cpsoper (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• oppose RfC was launched before there was sufficient talk page discussion. editor appears to be on fire; he/she first edit warred and now launched this. Wikipedia works over days, not hours. This is not social media. Please see WP:RFC instructions. Please withdraw the RfC and don't waste the community's time with this, yet. for pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
• Cpsoper, Interval edits may have addressed this issue to some degree. A source that you proposed has been incorporated, as has another reference. The balance seems a bit better now, but you may want to modify things further. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: This doesn't seem like the kind of issue that needs system-wide RfC attention (at least not yet); as FeatherPluma says, the text under discussion has already changed, in ways that may make the question moot.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I have suspended the RFC, given these comments. Cpsoper (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Centrality of issue of the land promise

The question of the perpetuity of the land promise is a central aspect of supersessionism. "At the heart of the controversy surrounding the nation of Israel today and the Jews in particular, the matter which most frequently awakens fervent dispute concerns...the land of Palestine." The sources cited for this edit [3] reflect this, and without some reflecting a/ on the covenant of Abraham b/ on the land promise, this article's section on Protestant views (and in general) remains inchoate and vague. Cpsoper (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Please explain why the source you cited in that edit is reliable. — Confession0791 ^talk 06:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Published by an academic source, by an authority in the field, and extensively documented and referenced, the author surveys and interacts with interlocking positions in detail. A published colloquium of same opinion, and it would be easy to add sources. Cpsoper (talk) 07:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the Protestant Views section is short and rather vague. Truth is, protestant views on this issue are varied. Presbyterians and Reformed subscribe to Covenant Theology, while Lutherans, Methodists, and Mainline denominations reject Dispensationalism. However, most Baptists and Pentecostals subscribe to a perpetual land promise and the Jewish character of a future Millennium. — Confession0791 ^talk 07:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I note I have received a rather swift warning for 'edit warring' by Jyt, without comment here! Rather surprised at this precipitous action, and I'd be interested to see some input here on the question. The land promise issue is very much central to this question as is clear in the references. Can we have some focus on improving the page rather than simply removing referenced material of direct pertinence to the issues in hand without discussion? Cpsoper (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes you did, because you edit warred. That is what the warning is for. On the original edit, objections:

a) the source is terrible. some self-published thing, with typos even, from Horner, some obscure minister, writing about a less obscure, stark Calvinist NT scholar, William Hendriksen. Kind of secondary-ish. the second source is an excerpt from an article written in 1811. Both are published at http://futureisraelministries.org/. The first source does not say anything like "the perpetuity of the land promise is a central aspect of supersessionism"; the second one doesn't itself mention the land (the intro to it - written by who knows.. does mention the land). so a badly sourced work of SYN. The second, edit-warred in version of the content and sourcing, now cites p 223 of the Horner book (ISBN 9780805446272) which i was able to read, and which discusses the centrality of the land to contemporary tensions with regard to Israel (the country) and arabs. the book in general makes no distinction between replacement theology and other forms of supercessionism. i personally kind of like where the guy is coming from, but the sources are bad and don't support the content. Jytdog (talk 22:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting now. There are three sources. One is Horner's book, it comes from an academic press, he's well known for his writings on Bunyan as well as on supersession, and is an international invited lecturer. It is his point in the quote cited, that the land promise is central to notions of supersession. The second is a British colloquium, from another academic press, which among other authorities included Horner, which also examined the mechanisms and nature of supersession, and again settles on the importance of the land. The third is indeed an old thesis, showing that the distinction between the Sinaitic and Abrahamic covenants, which is at the root of the question of the perpetuity of the land covenant, is old not a fruit of recent controversy, other writers, for example John Gill and John Owen could be cited to corroborate the same point. None of these are self-published , two URLS do come from one site which enables access. There is plenty of other material I have to hand to cite, along the same lines. Rather than focus on process, on which we evidently disagree, it may be better to focus on what is or isn't helpful for the page. I welcome thoughts from other editors below. The land promise is a basic and important focus, in the view of important contributors to this field, that surely deserves attention on a page like this. Cpsoper (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

FeatherPluma's edits were great, and the Manx source speaks directly to the land promise and how it is interpreted (literally or spiritual) and who inherits that promise. The RfC below is not neccessary and is in my view a waste of the community's time, and you should withdraw it. Jytdog (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, in the immediately preceding post, the intention behind "Manx" is that you should read "Maltz" (i.e. chapter 1 of Smith 9780956200617 in the reflist here). FeatherPluma (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

yes, thx Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

There's been a great deal of editing since the rfc was opened, and I agree it is now behind the curve. The new table is not supported by a reference and the notion of a linear spectrum it illustrates seems oversimplistic. Many older Christian writers still believed in the restoration of the Jews spiritually and to the land, yet held traditional covenant theology. Spurgeon for example ridiculed dispensationalism by writing, 'It is a mercy that these absurdities are revealed one at a time, in order that we may be able to endure their stupidity without dying of amazement'., held a traditional Puritan view of the covenant of grace and strongly anticipated (as did many if not most of the Puritans, who were usually not chiliasts ) a Jewish return to Israel and conversion.}} I propose to reintroduce the Horner reference. Cpsoper (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It also may be helpful for me to add some reference to Protestant theologians who identify the Church as the true Israel (thus meeting this page's introductory definition for replacement theology), who also see the obsolescence of the literal land promise as a primary axiom, to illustrate this link from an another aspect. Cpsoper (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Since an editor has now objected to Horner and the King's DS colloquium, in which he featured prominently, can we discuss why this has been reverted again without discussion? Cpsoper (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

OK - so Cpsoper just added the content ad source back again - which in my view is not acceptable. What do others here say about that content and source? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog Can I first ask you please to state your own objections to these sources, they are not clear to me? Cpsoper (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

i stated my objections above. but briefly, the source is not mainstream. i would accept content based on it, but it needs to be attributed and contextualized. per the current content, the actual physical land is not at the center of the issue. it is the identity of the people who inherit "the land", and what "the land" is (the physical land, some metaphorical extension of that, etc. Jytdog (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

What would be your definition of a 'mainstream' source, Jytdog? — Confession0791 ^talk 07:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

that would be missing the point. The Maltz source is pretty straighup scholarship, giving the range of views on the topic. if you haven't read it, please do. the source you want to bring is one narrow perspective, and if you want to use it, you have to attribute it and contextualize it. Jytdog (talk) 08:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Horner gives a wide range of views, both supporting and against the position he advocates. He cites positions contextually and courteously. He has published from an academic press, the views are supported by 7 other writers and many other attendees in the conference cited. His views about the continuity of the land promise represent near consensus amongst Puritans, and a substantial number of early Methodists, including John and Charles Wesley, and the majority of Victorian evangelicals, judging from quotes from Ryle, Bonar, M'Cheyne, Shaftesbury, Spurgeon to name but a few - see refs and wiki page. Rejecting the addition of a well balanced and well sourced opinion is itself maintaining a POV. Should we reopen the rfc? Cpsoper (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I am saying it needs to be contextualized, that's all, and you will need a secondary source with which to do that. your description that his views represent near conensus among those groups is just the kind of contextualization that would be useful to include - what is/are your source(s) for that description? Jytdog (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this, the wikipage section on Restorationism and the Protestant Reformation to the section on dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists linked above gives ten references, there are also many other pertinent references below. Iain Murray's work in particular on the Puritan Hope too spends 2 chapters as I recall on Israel and the Puritans, highlighting their post-millennialism. I agree Horner is advocating a position on supersession, as academics sometimes do, (his position is in fact pre-mill), and that this advocacy needs to be made clear, but he is an articulate representative of a historically substantial school of thought that the land promise is literal and perpetual. I don't see why Horner, who seems to me a reliable source for these views can't be cited directly. I shall draw together some other sources on the point in question, the conference published this position. There are other contemporary writers to add. Then there is the evidence of several writers (O Palmer Robertson, John Stott, Stephen Sizer, Robert Reymond to name but four) who advocate an allegorisation of the literal land promise and who according to the definition in the page here advocate supersession of all OT promises from Israel solely to the church - these in their own writings link the two ideas. May I propose an edit here, when I have a quiet moment, and we can discuss differences before any postings? Cpsoper (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

i am not saying you cannot cite horner directly. the content you added was "The perpetuity of the land promise, enshrined in the covenant with Abraham in Gen. 15, has been described as central to this dispute" and what I am saying is that this needs context -- by whom? when? this is clearly some specific perspective on the issue and not general. so... who? sounds like you are on it now. please do mind WP:UNDUE when fleshing this out. Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Introduction

The source quoted said that in Supersessionism, the Church replaces the Israelites as God's people. It does not specify that this is as the Chosen people, as all people in the world are now chosen to be part of the church. Jews and Gentiles are now both the Chosen peoples according to Supersessionism.

I took out the phrase ((From a supersessionist's "point of view, just by continuing to exist, the Jews dissent".)) This is because: 1. Carroll is anti-Supersessionist and so is not a good source to define Supersessionism. 2. His claim is incorrect - Supersessionists do not consider that Jews "dissent" just by existing. After all, if Jews accepted Christianity, they would still "exist" just like Greeks and Germans do, but they would not be dissenting.

So at best Carroll's quote would have to be reworded, like saying "just by continuing to exist outside the Church, nonChristian Jews dissent." But you can't just reword a writer's words for him like that.

References

Rakovsky (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Catholic Church's view of Old Covenant

this is related to the article making it seem as though the Church changed its position on the Old Covenant and whether we should change the articleIlikerabbits! (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I thought the article reflected that already—can you be more specific? Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The currently available catechism says:

• 71 God made an everlasting covenant with Noah and with all living beings (cf. Gen 9:16). It will remain in force as long as the world lasts.

• 72 God chose Abraham and made a covenant with him and his descendants. By the covenant God formed his people and revealed his law to them through Moses. Through the prophets, he prepared them to accept the salvation destined for all humanity.

• 73 God has revealed himself fully by sending his own Son, in whom he has established his covenant for ever. The Son is his Father's definitive Word; so there will be no further Revelation after him.

• God revealed the resurrection of the dead to his people progressively. Hope in the bodily resurrection of the dead established itself as a consequence intrinsic to faith in God as creator of the whole man, soul and body. The creator of heaven and earth is also the one who faithfully maintains his covenant with Abraham and his posterity. It was in this double perspective that faith in the resurrection came to be expressed. In their trials, the Maccabean martyrs confessed:

The King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws.540 One cannot but choose to die at the hands of men and to cherish the hope that God gives of being raised again by him.541

• "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."267
• The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."268

But I think the secondary sources mostly say they've changed their position? Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The current content is reliably sourced. Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

My point is it makes it seem the Church changed its position but I dont this this represents it accurately also a lot of the secondary sources not being Catholic probably dont accurately represent what the Church actually saysIlikerabbits! (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

As always, what is your proposed content and what are the sources.Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

this explains the Church's position on whether the Old covenant has been revoked more https://www.firstthings.com/article/2005/11/the-covenant-with-israel. So the Old Covenant's Priesthood and Sacrifices and the ceremonial law have come to an end but the Moral law remains in force and is fulfilled in the New Covenant but God has not rejected IsraelIlikerabbits! (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

That source does not deal with your claim in your original post. Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

My point is that I dont think this is anything different from what the Church taught in the past perhaps there is a re-emaphsis on different parts of the teaching but it seems the same. But the article makes it seem as if there was a changeIlikerabbits! (talk) 02:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

This talk page is not here for you to make "points". If you want to change the content, please propose a change here on the talk page, with sources. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so my request is to change this Supersessionism is not the name of any official Roman Catholic doctrine and the word appears in no Church documents, but official Catholic teaching has reflected varying levels supersessionist thought throughout its history, especially prior to the mid-twentieth century. Supersessionist theology is extensive in Catholic liturgy and literature.[5] The Codex Justinianus (1:5:12) for example defines "everyone who is not devoted to the Catholic Church and to our Orthodox holy Faith" a heretic and Catholic liturgy contains echoes of supersessionist theology. The Second Vatican Council (1962–65) marked a shift in official Catholic teaching about Judaism, a shift which may be described as a move from “hard” to “soft” supersessionism, to use the terminology of David Novak (below).[27]

Pope Pius XII held supersessionist views. Prior to Vatican II, Catholic doctrine on the matter was characterized by “displacement” or “substitution” theologies, according to which the Church and its New Covenant took the place of Judaism and its “Old Covenant,” the latter being rendered void by the coming of Jesus.[28] The nullification of the Old Covenant was often explained in terms of the “deicide charge” that Jews forfeited their covenantal relationship with God by executing the divine Christ.[29] As recently as 1943, Pope Pius XII stated in his encyclical “Mystici corporis Christi”:

By the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ… [O]n the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race.[30]

to

Supersessionism is not the name of any official Roman Catholic doctrine and the word appears in no Church documents. The Second Vatican Council (1962–65) marked a shift in common teaching about Judaism, a shift which may be described as a move from “hard” to “soft” supersessionism by David Novak to use the terminology of David Novak (below).[27]

Catholic teaching states that some aspects of the Old covenant were abolished but the moral law was fulfilled in the New covenant and Israel has a special relationsip with God even now. The nullification of the Old Covenant earlier was often explained in terms of the “deicide charge” that Jews forfeited their covenantal relationship with God by executing the divine Christ.[29] As recently as 1943, Pope Pius XII stated in his encyclical “Mystici corporis Christi”:

By the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ… [O]n the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race.[30]

The reason i took out some parts is because it didnt make sense to have them in the article like the Codex Justinianus was not a document on Theology but a collection of laws. And since it is not an official doctrine its hard to say the Church officially tuaght supersessionism.

References

Ilikerabbits! (talk) 07:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

You are proposing removing sourced content and adding content that doesn't deal direct with the concept of whether view on supercessionism changed. This is not OK. And there is no "now" in WP - please see WP:RELTIME.Jytdog (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jytdog this is OR, you are talking about the doctrine of salvation, "echoes of supersessionism"? I can take a closer look and see if sourcing can be improved in a bit. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I was thinking that linking to this article would show the Position of the Church now is just like it was earlier but I understand your concern but I think we should some things in the article for example we should remove the references to Codex Justinianus since it wasnt ever a Church document but a collection of civil laws.Ilikerabbits! (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Catholic Commentaries. Confraternity Bible: https://web.archive.org/web/20170615162537/http://haydock1859.tripod.com/confraternity/id141.html The Problem of the Rejection of Israel - “He has demonstrated that Israel's reprobation was due to their own wilful obstinacy and blindness. But now, lest this contention irritate and repel the Jews, he shows that in their rejection God's gracious purpose and providence were at work.” “The Jews remain the people of God's predilection, and will eventually be converted and saved.” Haydock Bible: https://web.archive.org/web/20171204061858/http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id155.html “The nation of the Jews is not absolutely and without remedy cast off for ever; but in part only (many thousands of them having been at first converted) and for a time: which fall of theirs God has been pleased to turn to the good of the Gentiles.”

Removing source

I think we should remove the source from David Novak since the book is clearly opposed to the Church 'A history of Catholic antisemitism : the dark side of the church'.Ilikerabbits! (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree per Wikipedia:I just don't like it. --GHcool (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

But it doesn seem neutral and you dont really get any new info from itIlikerabbits! (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

You get plenty of useful info from it. Furthermore, "While Wikipedia is required to present a neutral point of view, sources on the other hand are not expected to be neutral." --GHcool (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

change article

i know I already talked on this, but I feel that the article needs to make a distinction between the relationhip God has with Israel and for example the sacraments and laws with Israel which were abolished. Because the way the article is seems to set them up in contrast as if there has been a change in position bu thtere hasnt really been. That distinction needs to be made in the article to save it from confusion on the Church's position. So can I add it? Ilikerabbits! (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

No. We are not fighting the supercessionism debate here, we are describing it. See WP:Beware of tigers. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jytdog. --GHcool (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I know but to accuratel describe it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikerabbits! (talk • contribs) 03:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Supersessionism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140404030447/http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/edith-stein-apostate-saint to http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/edith-stein-apostate-saint

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

David Novak and Jewish views

At the moment, most of the space in the "Jewish views" section is given to the views of David Novak, who is one Jew, seemingly in the minority on this. The view is sourced to an article that Novak wrote for a magazine that he is on the editorial board of, and thus shows zero filter that this one statement of view is of particular import, much less enough to gain the majority of the description of Jewish views. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

"Identicalism"

There seem to be views that hold that the Christian church has not so much superseded Israel, but is rather identical to it, and that the new covenant was given by god to the very same entity as the old and can be considered sort of retroactive as well. I've seen some texts of Eastern Orthodox origin say so (though I presently cannot point to one specific text, as this was years ago). Should this be mentioned, or is this view not different enough from Roman Catholic supersessionism to warrant inclusion? -- 194.39.218.10 (talk) 11:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Defining Supersessionism

Someone had changed the definitions of Supersessionism in entry. Part of it is fine. Part of it is so very wrong. Supersessionism is just another term for Replacement Theology. In fact, when I put into a Google Search "replacement theology" up comes, instead, Supersessionism, which is okay. But someone has gone into the basic definition of both and entered a whole pile of pro-Catholic stuff. Okay, not that we have to delete all pro-catholic stuff, but it was the Catholics of old who begat Supersessionism.

That said, let's get back to what's wrong with the entry for Supersessionism. First, (in its very first sentence) it states that "Supersessionism, also called replacement theology, is a Christian doctrine which asserts that the New Covenant through Jesus Christ supersedes the Old Covenant, which was made exclusively with the Jewish people."

Folks, that is not Supersessionism, or Replacement Theology. That is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It's the same gospel (good news) which Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, preached in their Gospels. It is the basics of every Reformation Protestant group and most Messianic denominations today. The Covenent sealed in and through the shed blood of Messiah come is a better Covenant. You can disagree with that Way but that in no way changes the definition of what constitutes Supersessionism, because:

The actual definition of Supersessionism and Replacement Theology is to asset that "the Church" replaces Israel, and so where the Bible gives out promises of good thing by saying "Israel" in it, that now means "the Church." It is where all those good intentions the God of Israel has, and has said to His people, it is now transferred to "the Church." That is why so many believe that "the Catholics" invented and perpetuated that belief, because Catholics invented "church" which is not anywhere in the actual oldest manuscripts of the "New Testament."

See The Tree of Life Version of the Bible (both old and new covenant) and you will see where the Roman Church invented a word "church" it is now translated "Messiah's community" which is an accurate and all encompassing term, for congregations to individuals all, who belong now to Messiah (Christ). See William Tyndale/Tynedale, the first person to translate the Bible into English. The Matthew Bible used his work as he was killed before it was completed. 85% of the KJV was taken from Tyndale's work. He, adamantly, refused to use the word "church" in his translations into English, and for good reasons.

Someone corrupted your entry on Supersessionism. I do not know how to Edit Wiki, but many of you do. Please do so, and make a note of whomever corrupted it, it used to be correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:8C80:2C90:6180:EB1:862D:D704 (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)