Fri Dec 1 19:16:53 1995

From majordom  Fri Dec  1 19:16:53 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA04308; Fri, 1 Dec 1995 19:16:53 +0500
X-Sender: j.mallon@mailbox40.utcc.utoronto.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: groover@netcom.com (Robert Groover)
From: j.mallon@utoronto.ca (James Mallon)
Subject: Re: Supercessionism]
Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Message-Id: <95Dec1.191409est.797495(3)@bureau-de-poste.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Date: 	Fri, 1 Dec 1995 19:14:04 -0500
Content-Length: 2518
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk

        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

Back