[Arthur Gordon Pym]

Originally Posted by Gnist

We can split it if you prefer

No need.

Originally Posted by Gnist

but I think you are bending backwards if you deny that the New Testament is relevant to the subject - the New Testament as such, and not just the official Catholic interpretations of it.

It is. All I said was that in both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches the texts of the Old and the New Testament are seen in conjunction with the Church tradition as forming some larger unity.

Originally Posted by Gnist

A discussion of the New Testament should be a part of this debate. Its contents have been referred to as a ground on which a Judaeic character of Christianity may be rebutted, and I straightforwardly contest that claim with evidence.

Still that chapter does not claim that Israelites are automatically saved. It is quite ambiguous and it does not - independently from later Catholic interpretations - unambigusously claim that Jews are still chosen and that they are automatically saved. Doesn't Paul say: "some of those of my flesh might (ie. the Israelites) emulate me and be saved".

On the other hand, Israel could be taken in a spiritual sense, allegorically, as symbolizing the entire humanity, a part whereof accepts God's messages (a small part of those who did not bow their knees before the idol of Baal) and another (bigger) part outright rejects it.

Originally Posted by Gnist

If you trust the Catholic interpretations for the purposes of a discussion about the New Testament, then what you say about it is an article of your faith, and not in the realm of unbiased exegesis and inquiry.

There is no entirely "ubiased" exegesis and enquiry.