Print

Print


Marcia,
    I'm willing to get on to other conversation topics, especially if my words and/or spirit are getting in the way. I hadn't realized that you wanted me to discuss supersession -- I offer as argument the New Testament and the prophecies of the Messiah in the Old Testament. Perhaps I don't know enough Jewish people, but I believe they are all forward-looking toward the Messiah. They just don't believe He has come yet. Of course, as I'm sure you know, Christ is a synonym for Messiah. I did not mean to be historically lazy or inaccurate: I suppose I thought that you were already familiar with a Christian perspective on Judaism. Jesus Christ (as He is presented in the New Testament) claimed to be the Messiah the Jews were waiting for, fulfilled all the prophecies that had been made about Him, and lived and died on behalf of His people. Some do not believe this to be a historical reality. I did not believe it for most of my life. But my mind has been converted. I have no idea if supersession is a pejorative term or just a descriptive one, but if it describes me, this explanation above is why.
I'm not sure why I've given the impression that I won't let people name themselves. Sure, that's certainly up to them. And I realize that this discussion is taking place in a "secular" forum, which is why I've already told Nancy that I'm willing to drop this and move on to other things. I have never consciously attempted to bully anyone, so I apologize for that impression. But you know as well as anyone that ideas have consequences, that the true beliefs of the soul are real. I can't pretend like they're something that only has meaning for me one day out of the week. We're talking about perspectives on reality, not other clubs we're a member of.
Feel free to respond. I do not need to have the last word, but it seemed in your last post that you were looking for a response from me.

Best wishes,
Will

>>> [log in to unmask] 11/09/04 12:00AM >>>
[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
>
Tom,
    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!

Marcia