Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olive Tree Theology


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Olive Tree Theology

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not accurate, not factual. This was not introduced by Paul. Just lots of opinions about "metaphors" and "possibilities". Igetome (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. The phrase "endorsed by David H. Stern" in the lead rings alarm bells. Obviously, all Christians would agree witht he use of the metaphor, since it is in the New Testament. It strikes me that this is just a refinement of Supersessionism - that is, almost all supersessionists would agree with the statement that "the cultivated olive tree in Romans 9 - 11 is spiritual Israel, a people consisting of both Jews and Gentiles." This article is just a commentary (and one particular scholar's interpretation) of a biblical passage. But the bottom line is whether the phrase has been recognised in scholarly circles. The Google Books search suggests it hasn't, and is therefore a neologism. StAnselm (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence that David H. Stern's reading of this passage is notable. -- 202.124.73.75 (talk) 08:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Possible keep -- I also do not like "endorsed". Romans 9-11 is liable to be ignored by gentile christians, becuase it has litlte relevance to them.  It is however part of the scriptures.  A commentary on it is thus potentially encyclopaedic.  The question is whether this is merely one man's opinion (hence a NN WP:NEOlogism, or whether it represents the views of a wide range of Messianic Jews.  If it does, it should be kept, but with some cleaning up.  However, I am not qualified to judge.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Romans 9–11 are covered in brief at Epistle to the Romans. I am also out of my comfort zone in judging the article under discussion here, but, if this interpretation is significant, would like to suggest the possible alternatives of expanding the Romans article or creating a spinoff article on these chapters which could outline all significant interpretations. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not pass the general notability standards. --Cox wasan (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment We already have Dual-covenant theology and Supersessionism. -- 202.124.75.236 (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per FRINGE. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.