[log in to unmask] wrote:
> **You avoided answering my question about supersession,
> but here you show that you do in fact think of Judaism as belonging to
> Christianity. I'll just say that this seems to me historically bizarre
> and lazy thinking.**
> I thpoght he had said he was not familiar with the term supersession.
> You act as if you've caught him in some lie, but do not forget the old
> saying, "to a fly caught in horseradish, all the world is
> horseradish." It makes perfect sense to me that people who hold
> beliefs that fall within the meaning of supercession might be
> unfamiliar with the term.
> Also, what do you mean by "historically bizarre and lazy thinking"? A
> believing Christian surely is permitted to profess belief that Christ
> came for all mankind, "to the Jew first but also to the Gentile", as
> Scripture puts it. To call that lazy or bizzare is to apply those
> terms to a fundamental tenant of someone's faith. You're free to think
> that way, and of course to express yourself, but you should not be
> surprised if there are those who find *your* views at least as
> offensive as those you object to (and no more On Topic.)
> Tom K
Will thanked me for explaining the term, but did not then talk about
what it meant. You've missed something.
I have never used the word "offensive." I characterized what Will
said the way I did because he said "accepting Christ was meant to be the
natural progression of Judaism" and did not provide any argument or
explanation. "Was meant to be" is unhistorical and lazy. Would you be
happier had I asked "Sez who?" And the difference between Will and I is
that I don't deny Jews or Gentiles the human privilege of naming for
themselves who they are. Why would I care what you or Will believe? I
care that Will is telling others he can decide what is best for them.
As I said to him before, since you want to repeat my words, there is a
difference between a discussion within the faith and one in a secular
forum. Will can explain what he believes all he wants; that's
irrelevant to me. When he asked how his hypothetical proselytizing
(which he brought into the conversation last week) sounds, I answered.
When he defines, not his idea of Judaism, not his "belief that Christ
came for all mankind," but Judaism and love and truth, I won't be
bullied by you or by him. No one but Will made his belief an issue.
Now we mustn't respond!