Talk:Synagogue of Satan

This article was nominated for deletion on April 26, 2005. The result of the discussion was Delete.

Roman Catholicism

The reference to the Satanist Freemaosnry is sourced by the encyclical Etsi multa. The English translation, which isn't available on the b vatican.va website, has been sourced by way of secondary references like ewtn.com. a monography edited by Rputledge and a more comprehensive text having multiple other ponficial document translated into English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.38.238.91 (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CBS News

I removed the paragraph sourced to CBS news, as it was essentially a blog post written by an anonymous author, and published under a Jewish owned media outlet, which calls into question both the accuracy, and objectivity of the article (likewise, we wouldn't use a Christian owned media outlet to make theological arguments pertaining to Islam or Hinduism for the same reason). While CBS is generally considered a reliable news source by wikipedia, I believe theological discussion is out of scope of their area of expertise. If what they reported is truly a widely accepted stance as this article claimed, it should not be particularly hard to find more authoritative Christian sources, as this is a discussion that has been ongoing for centuries. Tempes1 (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is quoting a well qualified source - Harold W. Attridge, who is the former dean of Yale Divinity School. It's a valid source. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That article does not even mention anything about The Synagogue of Satan, nor does it quote scripture from Revelation.

And to further push the point, his interpretations of John's writings seem to be self-serving. The fact that John was a Jew does not preclude him from speaking critically of other Jews (particularly those who preached blasphemy, to whom he was referring). John states in Romans 9:6-8 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. Tempes1 (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to call something

WP:OR, make sure you understand what that means. Attridge states "Uses of that passage and other passages..." with "other passages" likely including Rev 2:9, 3:7-9. The source may be weakly supporting the statement, but it is not OR. Second, re-read your second paragraph and figure out where you went wrong. ButlerBlog (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

You are inferring something that is not stated in the article. That is exactly what

WP:OR

is: This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.

Revelation most likely wasn't even written by John the Baptist, but by John of Patmos, so even your inference is baseless. Why don't we simply keep modern day politics out of the article entirely? Some secular books about the evil Trump Nazis are not valid theological sources either. You are clearly trying to push your political biases onto scripture, which is both against wikipedia's rules, and a grave sin. Please consider your motivations here. Tempes1 (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want some personal insights into what is widely believed within Christianity (but obviously not to use as a source for this article), take a look at this answer, which is more logical than what you've proposes, and also more consistent with the rest of scripture. Tempes1 (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of the issue here is that you're essentially tilting at windmills. This article, based on its own short description, is about the phrase itself being used as an anti-Semitic pejorative. It's not a theological discussion of who/what was actually being referred to in these verses, or what the verses mean; nor is it intended to be exegetical.

As for the content in question, the sentence "It is widely accepted as referring to a specific group of Jews who opposed Jesus," I would agree is problematic and needs to be removed. It's unsupportable. I don't think it was added to in specific relation to the rest of that paragraph.

However, the rest is the actual point of this article - that there are some who have used this term as an anti-Semitic pejorative. That's undeniable. Barkun and Kaplan are well accepted academic sources on what we are referring to here. Both cover Christian Identity rather in depth, and CI is one of the several fringe groups where you'll find this phrase being used in this context. This article (and thus, this discussion) isn't about what Christians believe - it's about how the verse/phrase has been misused.

(Regarding my "baseless" inference - John did not write Romans.) ButlerBlog (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Nixon/Graham conversation, it is audio tape 043-161. The "synagogue of Satan" comment is at about 12:58 in the audio. Regardless of whether one considers it anti-Semitic in context or not doesn't matter; the statement here in this (our) article simply says he used the phrase - which he undeniably did - and that he apologized for his remarks - which he also undeniably did. Two sources have been added - the tape itself, and a New York Times article indicating Graham's public apology. ButlerBlog (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

An anonymous user is continuously editing this page to spew antisemitic hate speech and holocaust denial conspiracy theories. 67.220.11.62 (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done:

WP:AIV is that way. This template is meant for COI requests and is extremely backlogged. Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 02:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]