Talk:Christian views on the Old Covenant

Cafeteria Christianity link
The article now links to the article Cafeteria Christianity when it refers to those who believe only some of the Mosaic law is applicable. This is pretty funny as a satire of Christianity but less successful in a serious encyclopedia, since Cafeteria Christianity refers to those who dissent from Church teachings, and has nothing to do with the theological position on Biblical law. Thus I am deleting the links. MathHisSci (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Cafeteria Christianity is not a satire. It's the notion that some laws apply while others do not. I've restored the link. 75.14.215.248 (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And, as further clarification, almost all "Church teachings" are derived from "Biblical law". For example see Christianity and homosexuality. 75.15.199.147 (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The second commentator is surely incorrect. The condemnation of homosexuality to take one example is also found in the New Testament, as is condemnations of other types of sexual "immorality". And the Catholic Church, the biggest Christian church, also quite freely bases their moral teachings on natural law philosophy and church tradition. Anyway, Cafeteria Christianity is clearly a derogatory term, as the Wikipedia article attests, which by itself makes it bad to link to it. Further it is clearly supposed in normal usage to refer to those who dissent from orthodox Christian teachings, but that Biblical law is partially abrogated is the orthodox view! Every major form of Christianity has believed this for the last 1700 years or so and it was the most common Christian view before that. Let me ask you this, have you ever heard the term Cafeteria Christian used for a Christian who does not believe in following the Jewish food laws or circumcising male babies? I haven't and a quick Google search indicates that it surely appears to be rare. But of course not believing this means you believe in at least the partial abrogation of Biblical law, if you are Christian. The Wikipedia article on Cafeteria Christianity makes the same connection to Biblical law but cites no example of anyone actually using the term in this way. As the article stands now it describes every major Christian denomination as a form of Cafeteria Christianity which seams rather POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MathHisSci (talk • contribs) 21:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * NPOV is official Wikipedia policy. As such, we don't make the claim, as you did, that "Biblical law is partially abrogated is the orthodox view". Instead, as the current intro states: "There are diverse views of the issues involved with some concluding that none is applicable, some concluding that only parts are applicable, and others concluding that all are still applicable to believers in Jesus and the New Covenant." Emphasis on diverse views, not promoting ones own views as orthodox. By the way, there are also diverse views on exactly what orthodoxy is. 75.0.11.194 (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well de facto it is the orthodox or traditional (not implying it is the correct view of course) view in the sense of being since this is what the vast majority of Christians have believed since the disappearance of the Ebionites and other Jewish Christian group. (Though even they apparently believed Jesus had abolished sacrifices.) While they might avoid the term abrogate, the idea that Christians do not have to follow the Jewish food laws, the laws concerning sacrifice or circumcision is the official doctrine of the Catholic church, the Orthodox church, every protestant group I am aware of, Jehovas witnesses, the Mormons and so on. But anyway I am not suggesting we describe one view necessarily as orthodox, since it could be construed as an endorsement, and the edit I made (deleting one link) did not do so. I am only critical to the fact that the article describes the majority of Christians as Cafeteria Christians, a term I claim is derogatory (which the Wikipedia article supports) and thus not appropriate. Further I believe the term Cafeteria Christianity isn't even commonly used to describe this view, instead being used to describe something different. Do you think it is common to call Christians who don't keep kosher Cafeteria Christians? If it is rare to call them that Wikipedia should not do that either even if there were no concerns with bias. MathHisSci (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess I can buy that argument. Cafeteria Christians are a minority, but the majority of Christians today only follow a few of the Biblical laws, so it's incorrect to make the linkage in this case as it implies that the majority of Christians today are Cafeteria Christians. I'll remove the wikilink from the article, see what happens. 75.14.221.175 (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Article creation
There has been discussion about the creation of this article at Talk:Old Testament and Articles for deletion/Christian Torah-submission. Those discussions contain helpful information.

Much material needs to be moved from the section Old Testament, and a much shorter "summary style" section left behind.

A lot of piped links need to be replaced, which appear something like this: Christian views of the law, and this article needs to be added to the "See also" sections of a large number of articles. Colin MacLaurin 16:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It should also contain a summary of Ebionites. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge
FYI: After a consensus on that page, I merged the entire article, Christian Torah-submission, into its section within this article. At this time, it puts much more information under this view than others. A balance will eventually be recommended. However, rather than sacrifice information in this view to balance the length of the others, I have placed templates on the others encouraging expansion. -Namikiw 20:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Torah-submissive" and related terms
In reviewing Talk:Christian Torah-submission, it seemed many editors thought the term "Torah-submissive" was a neologism (see Avoid neologisms), and some thought it was used within Messianic Judaism. If anyone believes it is actually a common term, please provide a reference. Even if it is only used within a certain community (such as Messianic Judaism), it could still be mentioned as "The term 'torah-submissive' is used by Messianic Jews to describe themselves." However if not, I propose removing all references to it in articles. It may be simply intended as a descriptive phrase (Assume good faith), and if so I suggest rewording, as it has a formal 'ring' (tone) to it. Colin MacLaurin 11:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

addition of Template:intro length
An editor claims the intro is too long. It looks fine to me. Does anyone else think the intro is too long? 75.0.0.125 (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

So, at the end of the day, there's no evidence that Jesus meant to discard Mosaic law...? On the other hand, there are several passages where he rather seemed very clear that people should really follow every commandment of Torah (to the point where he defends death penalty for disrespectful children), or where he made it even more strict (as in the case of divorce).

Is there then any concrete basis in the words attributed to Jesus for not following the "eternal" Law?

Did Jesus discard Jewish Law?
So, at the end of the day, there's no evidence that Jesus meant to discard Mosaic law...? On the other hand, there are several passages where he rather seemed very clear that people should really follow every commandment of Torah (to the point where he defends death penalty for disrespectful children), or where he made it even more strict (as in the case of divorce).

Is there then any concrete basis in the words attributed to Jesus for not following the "eternal" Law?


 * Antinomianism has been around for a long time, and it will probably be around for some time to come. It's part of human nature. 68.123.72.39 (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you mean specifically the words of Jesus in the Bible, probably Mark 3:1-6, (Jesus heals on the Sabbath) and the Great Commandment, but the doctrine of Justification by Faith or Antinomianism is also theologically significant. Seraphimsystem (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

History Section
Seems off-topic. Thinking about removing. Ideas/Opinions? Willfults (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Why would a history section be off topic? Many wikipedia articles include them. Why shouldn't this one? 75.0.2.240 (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

New Covenant Theology v. Dispensationalism

 * Per "New Covenant Theology view: actually, why not cut this sentence out, and note at top that NCT is a combination of CT and Dispensationalism?"
 * 1. What is your source that it is such a combination of CT and Dispensationalism.
 * 2. That sentence at least makes an atempt to give useful information on how CT and Dispensationalism are different.
 * 3. Even if it were true that NCT is a combination of CT and Dispensationalism-- to tell readers that it is does not really tell readers anything about NCT. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ

Here's a good source: TMSJ 18/1 (Fall 2007) 149-163: Introduction to New Covenant Theology, check it out. As for the details of NCT, suggest that be done in the article on New Covenant Theology. 75.15.192.13 (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that online source. If we agree on the current text we can remove that POV tag. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ 19:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Moo
If you think Moo has a non NCT view please dicuss it here. Thanks. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 21:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am just suggesting caution. As far as I know Douglas J. Moo has not yet come out of the closet and stated that he is a "New Covenant Theologian". His view is obviously similar but for whatever reason he calls it a "Modified Lutheran View". Unless he claims the NCT title, wikipedia should not be making the claim for him. That would constitute Original Research. 75.14.217.57 (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Should the section titled "Recent scholarship" be censored?
Willfults commented the section out with the following comment: "what constituents accurate scholarship is highly debatable among Christianity, and this section is a gold mine for POV-dispute as Catholics will disagree with Protestants etc"


 * My opinion is that this section is valid and should not be censored from wikipedia. Wikipedia is not censored. I don't think this section should be a list of all publications on Christianity and the Law in the last 20 years, but major Reliable sources such as Five views on Law and Gospel should be mentioned. 75.15.194.71 (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

New Birth
Am I missing it or is nothing stated in the article about the new birth? There is a reason that Jesus said that "ye must be born again". Though the phrase is thrown around, it is a fundamental teaching throughout the NT and specifically answers the question of the Law. The Law, according to scripture, and thus to many Christian denominations, applies in full to every person born. It is the schoolmaster that teaches us that we are not and can not be good enough to escape judgement. For those who have been "born again", and thus dead to the Law, have had the Law fulfilled by Christ and they are no longer under that law. The spirit of the Law is then followed by this believer not as a matter of religious practice, but as a manifestation of the new nature. In short, the Law still applies in whole, but cannot be kept with regard to the unbeliever, while it does not apply, but nevertheless is lived, at least to some extent, by the believer. If I have missed this view in the article, please correct me. I'm not sure what you would call it other than the the Gospel view. There are entire chapters and books of the Bible devoted to this, for instance, the book of Galatians, most of the book of Romans, especially chapter 6, and parts of Hebrews. This was the subject of the sermon on the mount. I suppose this would be the Biblical view, but I'll try to come up more diplomatic title before trying to post. Kainosnous (talk) 09:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Kainosnous. A wikipedia article is not for you, or me, to present our own views on matters. Rather, a wikipedia article is a report of what is being said on the topic from cited sources. The Bible should be considered a primary source. Editors at Wikipedia usually prefer secondary sources. Primary sources should not be used to create a view. As we cite the 'new birth' concept reported in scripture, and elsewhere, lets not use Wikipedia for personally developed unique understandings. Some of our best ideas are unique to us, but they are not good material for a wikipedia article. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia = Christian POV?
I feel that this article may not be NPOV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.111.194.218 (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This article relates to an internal Christian matter; as such, it is only natural that non-Christian POV's would be ignored in it and only Christian ones be considered. I do not find any biased material in this article or any reason to consider it "not NPOV" in the context it is written about.--Nahum (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed. This article is about Christian POVs. Not all of those match all the time, so when there's more than one, they need to be described neutrally with respect to each other. When there is agreement among Christians, that is the view the article presents. This still needs to be done in an encyclopedic manner, without hyperbole or proselytizing, etc., which simply means that the presentational tone remains low-key and is directed towards giving information only. And so it is. Evensteven (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Eastern Churches
This is an interesting article, but I feel like it needs to take into account the positions of the various Eastern Churches on this issue. I'm no expert so I have no idea what they are. Are they the same as/similar to that of the Roman Catholic Church? If not, how are they different? --EminentCluster (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I know that the Eastern Orthodox views are quite different from any of those here, but I would need to research sources to back up what I know and have little bandwidth for the job at the moment. I am watching, though, and would hope that I might get to it someday unless someone beats me to it. Evensteven (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

-- I also noted that the article is focused very much on the Western Church and also on American movements. What about the Eastern Orthodox? The Ethiopian and Coptic Churches? What about the new Pentacostal churches in Latin America and Africa? You cannot really trace the full history of a Christian idea while ignoring such large or historically important groups. I am not up to the task but perhaps someone can recruit others or "commission" a few writers to improve the article. Aren't there also unique Mormon perspectives on this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.53.204 (talk) 03:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Really. It seems to be based on different theological, not so much denominational or regional, standpoints. However, if you can improve the article by adding material based on reliable, authoritative sources, go ahead. Bermicourt (talk) 07:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Title, 2007 comments
Shouldn't the title of this article be: Biblical Law in Christianity? Or Christian views of Biblical Law? 75.15.200.172 18:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think those titles are good ones, but let's wait to see what other editors think too. The current and original title, "Law in Christianity" is ambiguous I agree - for it is not describing Christian attitudes towards secular or governmental law (such as Paul discusses in Romans 10, I think it was), but rather views about biblical law. I think both of your suggestions, Biblical law in Christianity and Christian views of biblical law are good ones (notice case changes). Colin MacLaurin 10:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Christian views of biblical Law might be better, since the Law is usually capped. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that title may be better if changed to distinguish this article's topic from Canon Law, etc. I think Christian views of Biblical Law or Biblical Law in Christianity are equally good. -Namikiw 20:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * After more thought, I think "Biblical law in Christianity" is better, as it parallels Hell in Christianity and other articles, and also it is superfluous to include "views" in the title, because according to WP:NPOV all major views must be presented (in all Wikipedia articles). Colin MacLaurin 11:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No-one has commented. I am moving this page to Biblical law in Christianity as it is an improvement for now. Further discussion welcome. Colin MacLaurin 10:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The title, "Biblical law" would be nice, but "Bible" can be used to refer to the Jewish scriptures as well. What do you think? Colin MacLaurin 10:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Title, 2014 comments
I don't know if anyone's going to come back around and read this after so many years have passed, but from my experience, the title that has apparently been settled on here ("Christian views on the Old Covenant") is far worse than some of the earlier ones, and is going to offend people unnecessarily. Use of the term "the Old Covenant", as though its being obsolete is an objective fact or consensus, is going to come across as very POV, if not outright anti-Jewish. →How about "Christian views on the Jewish Law and Covenant" ("the" optional)?--IfYouDoIfYouDon&#39;t (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would tend to think the most direct approach would be to replace "Old" with "Mosaic" in the title. However, the article is decidedly about Christian views, and in their view the Mosaic convenant is the "old" convenant, as contrasted with the new convenant initiated by the coming of the Messiah. I think Jews are capable of understanding that "old" is a Christian view, and that it's not anti-Jewish but simply non-Jewish. And NPOV does not mean that views are not stated, it means that they are identified as views when they are. It seems to me that the title covers that ground also. As for the very old comments further above, the phrase "Biblical law" does not equate to "Old Covenant". Evensteven (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "Biblical law in Christianity" or "Christian views on the Biblical law" are awful names-- see the "law of Christ." "Biblical law" makes it Wikipedia's view that the Mosaic laws are (1) Biblical, whatever that means and (2) the only Biblical laws. "Christian views on the Jewish Law" also has a number of problems, such as many Jewish laws being from outside the Bible.
 * I think a change to Christian views on the Mosaic Covenant would be okay. tahc chat 23:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think I've reconsidered that idea of using "Mosaic" in place of "Old". What Christians generally mean by the "Old Covenant" really isn't restricted to Moses. And it's certainly not just about law of any kind. It's as wide as the whole story of how God established a relationship with his chosen people, and what He told them about Himself, and especially about the promises He made to His people. Those promises were His convenant with them, and the law was given to teach the people how to remain faithful to that covenant and thus to remain in relationship with Him. It's about everything that bound God to His people, including the history by which He acted in relationship with them, and the prophecies he declared, as well as the law. The Pentateuch doesn't cover it all; so of course, neither does Moses. There is a thing we can identify as "Mosaic law", but nothing that represents a "Mosaic covenant". (Btw, I may be Orthodox, but this is not exclusively an Orthodox view by any means. I learned it this way growing up Anglican and have known many Catholics and Protestants who would say this.) Evensteven (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your assertion that "There is a thing we can identify as "Mosaic law", but nothing that represents a "Mosaic covenant"". Law of Moses is a phrase found in the Bible, and Mosaic Covenant is the common term for the agreement between God and the Israelites as received by Moses. In the Bible, Exodus 19 is commonly seen as initiating the Mosaic Covenant: "Then Moses went up to God; the Lord called to him from the mountain, saying, ‘Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the Israelites: You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now therefore, if you obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession out of all the peoples. Indeed, the whole earth is mine, but you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the Israelites.’ ". 75.0.12.83 (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you're right, if that is the common usage. But then, is the Mosaic convenant the same thing as what Christians usually mean by "Old Covenant"? I don't think so. God made a covenant with Abraham also, and with Noah, and so on both directions in history. As far as I'm aware, "Old Covenant" is a somewhat nebulous term that applies to all the covenants and relationship that God established with his chosen people before the coming of Jesus. It's meant specifically as a contrast to the "New Covenant" established by Jesus, the same way the terms "Old Testament" and "New Testament" are, and as a means of referring to what changed when Christianity emerged from Judaism. It's not a very exact usage, I agree, but that's also in contrast to the much more specific "Mosiac Law" (or "Mosaic Convenant" as you define it). Evensteven (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I would say that the New Covenant is central to Christian theology, and as such it implies the existance of an Old Covenant, and "old covenant" is a common term used in Christianity. Now, there is the question of exactly what is the "old covenant". Are the Ten Commandments "old covenant"? Is the entire Old Testament "old covenant"? There is a very tiny minority that proposes the complete Abrogation of Old Covenant laws, but that is a tiny minority. And historically Marcion rejected the Old Testament. But most Christians today believe that some Old Testament laws/teachings still apply and are the basis to Christian morality. Commonly the Council of Jerusalem is seen as supporting the Noahic Covenant. This seems to lead to either Dual covenant theology or Supersessionism, with supersessionism being the more common conclusion. 75.14.208.155 (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. My point is that "Old Covenant" does not have to mean exactly the same thing to all people, especially when they disagree about how it applies to the New Covenant. But in general, "Old Covenant" covers much more ground than anything one could justify calling a "Mosaic Covenant". "Old Covenant" is more comprehensive, whereas "Mosaic Covenant" is specific. And in fact, if the article hopes to cover "Christian" views in all their multiplicities, then it is going to have to interpret "Old Covenant" in multiple ways, insofar as they matter to those Christian views. "Mosaic Covenant" would be hopeless in the title because the restriction of meaning in that term would completely change the focus and topic of the article. Evensteven (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Recategorizations
I wish it to be noted that I take issue with two recent category changes, and think they require discussion before becoming entrenched.

First, this article was removed from :Category:Judeo-Christian_topics on the basis that that category only includes beliefs held in common between Jews and Christians. While that is indeed what the category page says, I think the title is misleading. I have raised that issue at Category talk:Judeo-Christian_topics, and based on the outcome there, it may or may not be found that this article belongs in that category.

Second, :Category:Christianity-related_controversies was changed to :Category:Jewish-Christian_polemics. Controversy is not the same thing as polemics. And disagreement or difference of view is not the same as either of those. The edit comment made the claim that "the topic of [this] article may be viewed as a Christian polemic against Judaism". Absolutely not so. If it were true, then a neutral encyclopedic article about it would not be possible. It is vital that in dealing with topics such as the one of this article that a mere difference of viewpoint, once expressed, neutrally or otherwise, is therefore polemical. Cooler thought must prevail. Polemics may sometimes (and do sometimes) occur when such differences are expressed, but not always. Polemical expression is only one type of expression, and I think it is critical to remember that when there are sensitivities to be considered. I have restored this article to the controversies category as a partial means of addressing this issue because the topic can be controversial and it can be polemical. But it can also be neither, and yet offer differing views, so the potential for extended categorization remains. Evensteven (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * My thanks to Editor2020 for two excellent recent edits. Looking again, I quite agree: "not polemics". Evensteven (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Evensteven, meanwhile there is a CfD proposal to upmerge polemics to controversies: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_12. If you wish, feel free to react. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

This talk page being categorized
This talk page pops up in a large number of categories and I don't know how the remove the categories here. Does someone else know? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Colossians link in 1.2 Lutherans
Links to an error at Bible Gateway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.31.155.117 (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Theonomy
I could not help but notice that all the Theonomy book citations which allegedly support the written description of Theonomy omit the actual page numbers of the books cited. Specifically, footnotes 18,26,27,28,29.

In addition, the claim that Theonomy breaks "from the traditional reformed position" on God's law is entirely based on the questionable opinion of one critic (Dr. Ligon Duncan in footnote #25). Should not the claim be supported by primary source evidence instead? And the cited online Duncan article is missing all of its own footnotes to its very claims. Here is a link to the same Duncan article which includes the missing footnotes:

http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/jollyblogger/files/duncan_moses_law_for_modern_government.pdf

Lastly, I think the footnote 24 allegation of Theonomy being "obscure" is irrelevant and perhaps misleading, especially in light of the well documented vast puritan and reformation historical background of Theonomy.

http://www.reformed.org/ethics/Jordan_judicial_laws_Moses.html

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe144.htm

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe551.htm

And if Theonomy is "obscure" now, that is more of indictment against modern Christianity than it is against Theonomy. Recall too, that Christianity itself was once an "obscure" sect 2000 years ago.

Contrary to the Wiki article, Theonomy did not "start" in the "1970s and 80s" arguing "that the civil laws as well as the moral laws should be applied in today's society". The English and American Puritans did the very same thing in their day 300 years ago, as did John Calvin and John Knox 450 years ago. One prime example is John Knox's written defense of the public execution of Michael Servetus for his Unitarian blasphemy.

http://www.covenanter.org/Antitoleration/knoxdefended.html

A defense later echoed by the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 in chapter 23:3.

http://www.westminsterconfession.org/confessional-standards/the-original-text-of-1646.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainsongman (talk • contribs) 07:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christian views on the Old Covenant. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reformed.org/ethics/index.html?mainframe=%2Fethics%2Fligon_duncan_critique.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100827013625/http://www.djmoo.com/articles/fulfillmentoflaw.pdf to http://www.djmoo.com/articles/fulfillmentoflaw.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Convenant
It seems that the term "Old Convenant" is anglocentric because no articles in other languages exist for the lemma. Also dictionaries do not feature the term of an "Old Convenant" or a "New Convenant", an old pact or a new. It would be important to trace the term to a Christian scholar or movement who coined it. 88.73.13.175 (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The term "new covenant" appears in the Bible in several places including Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8, which also refers to the "first covenant". And 2 Corinthians 3 refers to the "old covenant". So these terms weren't "coined" by scholars; they derive from the text of the Bible, which was written in Hebrew (OT) and koine Greek (NT) with some parts also in Aramaic. So definitely not anglocentric. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Jesus Christ was never a "Jew"! A Hebrew, yes, but never a Jew!
How can the word "Jew" be used to describe those who are known as the "Hebrews" when the word Jew cannot be found in the lexicon of any language of the world until centuries after the death of Jesus Christ?

Jesus Christ was born as a Hebrew, more specifically he was a Pharisee, but still a Hebrew until crucified.

The titular initials are INRI.(Latin: Iēsus Nazarēnus, Rēx Iūdaeōrum)

Jesus of Nazareth, Ruler of the Judeans. The Latin REX meant RULER. King was not a term used by Romans of the time until far later in history

To further claim that "Jew" was an acronym of Judeans would mean everyone, Romans included were Jews. This defies the truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.165.20 (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

"Torah-submission" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torah-submission&redirect=no Torah-submission] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)