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

misleading caption?[edit]

The caption to the first image states "Paul was the first major figure in Christian history to hold that Jewish law is no longer valid."

Paul was the first major figure in Christian history to hold that Jewish law is no longer valid.

yet later in the article it states: In the opinion of Roman Catholic ex-priest James Carroll, accepting Jesus' divinity, for Paul, was dichotomous with being a Jew. His personal conversion and his understanding of the dichotomy between being Jewish and accepting Jesus' divinity, was the religious philosophy he wanted to see adopted among other Jews of his time. However, New Testament scholar N.T. Wright argues that Paul saw his faith in Jesus as precisely the fulfillment of his Judaism, not that there was any tension between being Jewish and Christian.[19]

see also where it states: The relationship between Paul the Apostle and Judaism continues to be the subject of research, as it is thought that Paul played an important role in the relationship between Christianity and Judaism as a whole. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church claims that Paul's influence on Christian thinking is more significant than any other New Testament author.[9] Some scholars see Paul (or Saul) as completely in line with 1st-century Judaism (a "Pharisee" and student of Gamaliel or as part of Hellenistic Judaism),[10] others see him as opposed to 1st-century Judaism (see Pauline passages supporting antinomianism and Marcionism), while the majority see him as somewhere in between these extremes, opposed to "Ritual Laws" (see for example Circumcision controversy in early Christianity) but in full agreement on "Divine Law". These views of Paul are paralleled by Christian views of the Old Covenant. See also Antithesis in the Bible and Christianity in the 1st century.

Since these articles show there seems to be a variety of opinions about what Paul thought, should the caption to the first image be reworded to better reflect the content of the articles? Perhaps something like "Paul is often cited by those who believe that Jewish law is no longer valid"

Paul is often cited by those who believe that Jewish law is no longer valid.

Or is the image and caption needed at all? Does it add anything useful to the discussion?

DGedye (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DONE. checkY --GHcool (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[reply]

New Covenant theology[edit]

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

Change the link[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[reply]