Joe makes an important point that completely escaped me:
I must confess that I cannot adequately refute his points since his reading of the Gospels is so unique and, from my perspective, bizarre. The fact that he is able to completely misconstrue the Gospels is downright embarrassing. The burden of shame, however, does not fall on this bright young Oxford scholar but on us Christians. We should be explaining the Gospel message in such a way that even a child could understand, yet we have intelligent Rhodes scholars who are completely missing the point of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. Perhaps this should cause us to reflect upon our own effectiveness. What good will it do us if we can parse the intricacies of minor doctrinal issues when we are completely failing to share the Good News?
Joe's quite right here. It is not the fault of those outside the Church that they don't understand the Gospel message. It's the fault of Christians. As Paul said:
(Romans 10:14-15 ESV) But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”
If we haven't taught someone the Good News, they can't be expected to know it. It's true that some people are capable of finding the truth completely on their own, but we shouldn't expect that to be the rule.
While I'm at it, I'd like to point something out in a later Adnesnik post:
While I greatly appreciate the spirit in which PJ's comments were written, I'm afriad that I must disagree vigorously with their substance. Regardless of what Christians believe about the compatibility of Christianity and Judaism, it is extremely hard for even the most moderate and progressive Jews to believe that the two religions are "entirely consistent" or even mostly consistent. The idea that "Jews would benefit by acceping [the] fuller truth" of Christianity is simply anathema regardless of the generous spirit in which Christian teachings are offered.
To this, I'd simply like to point out that it's obvious that not all Jews agree with David's position. There are quite a lot of Messianic Jews out there. As I understand it, Messianic Jews cling to all the practices of Judaism, but they accept what we call the New Testament as scripture and, more importantly, accept Jesus (or Yeshua if you prefer) as the Messiah. Now I don't know how close to modern Judaism their practices are, or whether David would accept their practice of Judaism as consistent with what he knows. I do know that from my studies, I find their teachings about Jesus and redemption to track very closely with my understanding. It therefore seems to me that one can, indeed, do both.
And this is exactly what I would expect to find in a Jew who believes Jesus is the prophesied Messiah. As I said before, Christianity is not meant to be a replacement, per se, of Judaism. Rather, it is the natural extension of Judaism if one accepts that Yeshua is, indeed, the promised Messiah.
Update: I'd also like to echo Joe's comments about anti-semetic versus anti-Judaic. Even if you accept David's premise entirely, he has not made the case that the Gospels are anti-semetic (that they oppose Jews as a race). Rather, his actual case is that they are anti-Judaic (against Judaism as a religion). I don't accept David's arguments, so I would reject the conclusion that the Gospels are anti-Judaic as well, but I do think it's a rather important difference.