Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Bible and violence, talk, section 10: supersessionism outside the scope

For me this issue is about a definition and its references. For the other party involved it is about rejecting religion. I should probably take this list of false accusations to arbitration, but in the meantime, making some attempt to stay on point about the actual issue at hand, the subject is one sentence: the definition of supersessionism as it is stated in the article on the Bible and violence, and whether that sentence's references accurately reflect what the sentence says. That's it from my point of view.

I recognize the existence of supersessionism. I have no argument over its reality or its historical impact. I only and solely question the statement defining it here in this article. I checked the references and could not find this definition-- in any form-- in either reference. One reference did discuss violence and the other did discuss supersessionism, but no connection in either book was made between those two in the manner in which the statement in the article makes. I believe the statement to be a personal inference--who knows, it may even be a valid one--but since personal views are not copacetic, it should not be there unless it has a reference that states and supports it.

I asked for a reference that stated the definition in the same manner of the article, since all I could find were repeated definitions saying the same thing: supersessionism is about Christianity's attitude toward the Jews. It is based in Christology and eschatology. It looks like the statement in Bible and violence is a conflation of Marcionism and supersessionism. The references I was sent were on Marcionism and millenarianism and another which discusses supersessionism in the same manner as all the rest--none of them defined supersessionism in the manner of the sentence in this article.

There is a correct definition of supersessionism. This statement, in this article, is not it. It's that simple. It has nothing to do with all the personal libelous accusations that have accompanied this.Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)