Fri Dec 1 11:02:13 1995

From majordom  Fri Dec  1 11:02:13 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA02965; Fri, 1 Dec 1995 11:02:13 +0500
From: groover@netcom.com (Robert Groover)
Message-Id: <199512011558.HAA29677@netcom18.netcom.com>
Subject: Supercessionism]
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 07:58:13 -0800 (PST)
Cc: groover@netcom.com (Robert Groover)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1241      
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk

Re the term "First Testament", Felix Sung commented:
> On the other hand, there is (in North America at least) an inherent,
> connotative bias toward understanding "first" in terms of primacy of
> place or quality as opposed to "second," "e.g., "first class,"
> "second-hand," "first things" - when was the last time you heard a
> second-place-finisher referred to as a "winner"? Think Buffalo Bills!
> :-) which may offset, at least in part, a supercessionist
> understanding of "First Testament." 

I think this is quite correct, and exactly the point of the proposed 
change in terminology.  However, I have a more basic question: 

I understand that "supercessionism" is today's anathema, and (in
particular) that Jews may object to the supercessionist claims of
Christianity - but 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? 

Robert Groover   groover@netcom.com   (PGP key on request)
Member ECS, AVS, ACM, OSA, Sen.Mem.IEEE, Reg'd Patent Atty
        "All men by nature desire knowledge."

Back