Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Supercessionism]

Expand Messages
  • James Mallon
    The vary nature of inter-religious dialogue is the respect for the faith and beliefs of others. This involves a clear understanding of each group s beliefs.
    Message 1 of 1714 , Dec 1, 1995
    • 0 Attachment
      The vary nature of inter-religious dialogue is the respect for the
      faith and beliefs of others. This involves a clear understanding of each
      group's beliefs. The very nature of political correct language appears to
      be abstraction--abstraction from the concrete. Pluralism is indeed a
      virtue in our contemporary society, but must we lock ourselves into a
      pluralism that seeks to blur distinctions. Healthy pluralism celebrates
      the unique nature of each group.
      Today many Christians decline from using the term "Old Testament."
      AS has been mentioned in this discussion, "Hebrew Scriptures" appears to
      exclude the Greek writings, "First Testament" appears to denote a second.
      Nevertheless, with all due respect, is it not Christian belief that Christ
      has ushered in the New Covenant which fulfills the first (or "Old"
      covenant)--he kaine diatheke?
      Is there not something so radically new in Christ? Do Christians not
      believe that there is (Heb 1:1-2)? Why be misleading about this belief?
      Robert Groover admitted as much, although I contest his conclusions:

      "supercessionism seems to be an inherent part of
      traditional Christianity. Would it not be more
      straightforward (and hence more intellectually productive)
      to openly condemn the claims of traditional Christianity,
      or to openly debate its differences from rabbinical or
      Zealot traditions?"


      Is there a healthy pluralism here, when the content of one's faith is to be
      condemned in the name of intellectual productivity? As a "traditional
      Christian," does my faith exclude my from this debate? Why be offended? Is
      the Jewish claim that there is nothing radically new in Christ offensive to
      me? No, I may disagree, but why should I be offended by Jewish belief?

      With regard to dialogue with Jewish scholars, why can't we just
      speak of the "Scriptures." Need there be farther qualification. This
      title for the "Old Testament" is rooted in the New Testament itself!

      I look forward to your comments


      If the part of the dough offered as first fruits is holy, then the whole
      batch is holy; and if the root is holy, then the branches also are holy.
      But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot,
      were grafted in their place to share the rich root of the olive tree, do
      not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember that it is not you
      that support the root, but the root that supports you.

      Rom. 11:16-18

      James Mallon
      Toronto School of Theology
    • Julian Goldberg
      The complete Hebrew Scriptures (Hebrew Bible) or TANAKH (Torah-Law, Neviim-Prophets, Ketuvim-Writings) based on the Masoretic Hebrew text with vowels and
      Message 1714 of 1714 , Feb 4, 1997
      • 0 Attachment
        The complete Hebrew Scriptures (Hebrew Bible) or TANAKH (Torah-Law,
        Neviim-Prophets, Ketuvim-Writings) based on the Masoretic Hebrew text
        with vowels and cantillation marks in one complete compact black hard
        covered volume which measures 12 cm x 19 cm with over 1360 pages that
        have been arranged according to traditional chapter and verse divisions
        along with larger Hebrew letter printing and thicker paper pages for a
        volume of this size. Each book is $ 20.00 (U.S.) postpaid ($ 15.50 for
        the book plus $ 4.50 for postage) and can be ordered directly from:

        Julian Goldberg, 260 Adelaide St., E., # 215, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
        M5A 1N0.

        Thanks.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.