Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
Ahhh, ... right: Replacement Theology 2.0, which replaces Replacement Theology 1.0.
Has it occurred to you that the difference between 2.0 and 1.0 is a change in versions only?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
To what extent did Jesus promote supersessionism?
- Thread starter Dawnofhope
- Start date
Has it occurred to you that the difference between 2.0 and 1.0 is a change in versions only?
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Replacement theology at it's heart replace the Jews as God's chosen, with Christians.
I do not do that, and many Christians do not.
Christians are holding the place for the Jews, till they find it. We never replace them.
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
I really do think I understand what you're saying and I'll take your word for it that many Christians would agree with you, but ...
Suppose, for a moment, that the Jews, and only the Jews, get to decide who is and who isn't their Messiah. In that case--so it seems to me--fussing over whether they were right in rejecting Jesus as their Messiah is a "red herring" and ain't nobody's business except the Jews' business. If God or Jesus have any objections, they can take it up with the Jews when everybody gets to the top of the mountain. Till then, I say, the Jews have their path and we have our path and I, for one, will be pleased no end if and when I make it to the top. One thing I firmly believe is certain: There are going be a lot of folks who are surprised to see each other at the top.
Last edited:
shmogie
Well-Known Member
I agree, the Jews have a right to believe what they believe. I have no remit to convert them, their own people will do that according to Gods timeline.
We know their importance, and Christ wept over Jerusalem, stating that He wanted to gather them in and protect them, like a hen does with her chicks, but they would not allow it. They will some day.
I agree wholeheartedly with you, in that day, there will be many who are surprised they reached the top of your mountain, and many will be surprised they did not.
I have enough trouble keeping myself on the right path, I don't have the right to pick at others about how they walk their path.
It will all sort out according to Gods will.
dfnj
Well-Known Member
I think splitting hairs over the details of Jewish religious scripture is not going to get you crucified. I think Jesus was advocating you don't have to give money to the temple to get access to God or give money to the church in order to buy your absolution. I think what Jesus saying and advocating was threat to the cash cow of the Jewish religious monarchy.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Based on what study do you make this statement?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Then why did god go through with it? If youknow it will fail amd do it anyways, thats not being godly it's being an idiot. Amd it seems to go against stories such as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, where god assured Lot there were no righteous people in it, butdouble checked anyways to put Lots concerns at ease. This "know it will fail" makes your god look weak, dumb, and terribly inefficient.
Sounds like another problem with god, setting the bar so high he knows it can't be cleared. Is he also a sadist they way he seemingly wants to see people fail impossible tasks? Making life a Kobayashi Maru scenario is viciously and savagely cruel.
Not everyone wants to, not everyone thinks your god deserving of worship or being called god.
That is your belief. I say we are humans. Quirky, emotional, irrational, it is our condition. This does not make everything we do count as filthy rags. I don't hate humanity quite enough to condemn and denoujce with such broad strokes of contempt and disregard. I don't loathe our kind so much I would resort to such put downs, insults, and negativity.
Why should anyone serve your god who makes impossible tasks and denounces everyone as a filthy rag?
74x12
Well-Known Member
Oh, you're an adult and I'm not? Okay, that's nice.
As for wizanda; I don't believe you should single him out or pick on him at all.I suppose you think I am bad because I don't back down just because some people choose to call my beliefs "replacement theology"? Fine. I'm bad. You're good.
The term "replacement theology" is just a way to silence the truth. But it's not going to work. The people who say "replacement theology" are those who 1. misunderstand the scriptures and 2. want to please other people.
Well, you can't please both people and God. You have to choose one or the other. If you really love your neighbor then you speak the truth to them in love and not try to please them with falsehood.
Iymus
Active Member
Jos 24:19 And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve the LORD: for he is an holy God; he is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins.
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Hos 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
74x12
Well-Known Member
No, it was done to bring a few to righteousness. For all those who disobeyed many others choose the right path and were saved. However even they had to be forgiven. No one can truly live up to the Law of Moses. Even Moses sinned. But the good news is God forgives those who at least try to obey.
So the answer is God knew the nation as a whole would corrupt themselves and break the covenant; but He also knew there would always be a "remnant". Which is the group of those who would be saved. So, He did it for them and He also did it to keep a holy seed so the Messiah could come (in the flesh) and save the world.
Failure is assured but mercy and clemency is also assured if we really follow the way of God. It doesn't matter how many times you fall down; only how many times you get back up.
Yes of course. The fact is that Satan is real and can place (spiritual) chains on people and put them under a hex so that they won't be able to love the truth. But, the good news is God can change people and deliver them.
It's to show how even in our best state we aren't perfect. So we have a need. Pride keeps us from admitting it. The truth is harsh sometimes but still true. The light reveals everything that's why people prefer darkness.
The light is not always pleasant but it's still the way to see things as they truly are. And so love shines the light not contempt or hatred. Those things try to hide the light because they don't want anyone to have hope.
But the good news is everyone can be perfect and can find true cleanliness. That is real righteousness. Which has been revealed from above.
What is impossible for us is possible for God and even though what we make of ourselves is counted as filthy rags; that doesn't mean God can't make true righteousness in us. And this saying doesn't offend sinners; it only offends people who think they are good. Sinners who know they are bad are already able to admit it and are closer to repenting than people who think they are good.
Because God is burning fire of truth and His light reveals all things as it really is. It's not logical to hate the mirror just because it reveals some flaw. So we shouldn't hate God just because He reveals our actions as bad when we thought we had been good.
So God resists the proud and lifts up the humble. If you humble yourself then God raises you up and exalts you. But if you are proud then God brings you down to the ground. God wants everyone to repent; both the "good" people of this world and the bad people.
74x12
Well-Known Member
That's not what I do. Yet, they still accuse me of replacement theology. It's just a way to silence the truth.
I believe Jews were chosen in the flesh. Jesus is chosen in the Spirit. That is He is firstborn from the dead. He is the resurrection. If anyone wants to be Israel right now in this world. That's to be born a Jew. But if you want to be eternal Israel; then be a part of Jesus Christ. He was a Jew you know? But more importantly; He is alive forevermore and the grave has no power over Him.
So there will only be one Israel in the time to come and it's head is Jesus Christ.
Reformed Judaism constitutes a sizable group within Judaism.
Christianity began as a movement within Judaism. Those who followed the Teachings of Christ were mostly Jewish. However within a relatively short period the religion spread geographically and most of its adherents were not Jewish. Christian identity in most places has little if anything to do with ethnic identity and is solely dependent on belief.
Judaism OTOH is more strongly associated with being ethnically Jewish. As I understand it anyone from any background can convert to Judaism, but it is difficult in some places for those who are not ethnically Jewish to convert.
RabbiO
הרב יונה בן זכריה
It is Reform Judaism not Reformed Judaism.
First, a few relevant New Testament citations from Jesus and St. Paul:
"Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You fools! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? Instead, give for alms those things that are within; and see! everything will be clean for you" (Luke 14:39-41)
“I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean" (Romans 14:14)
"Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart—it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God" (Romans 2:28-29)
"[Jesus] has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances" (Ephesians 2:15-17)
"[Jesus] has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances" (Ephesians 2:15-17)
You've raised an important topic - although (as I'm sure you will appreciate) a delicate, controversial one as well in light of the sad history of Christian anti-Semitism, which inevitably overshadows any treatment of this doctrine.
The discussion has real significance for both Christian theology and interfaith dialogue with the practitioners of other Abraham faiths, most obviously with our Jewish brethren who believe in the irrevocable character of the Mosaic covenant (but also our Muslim and Baha'i ones too). With the notable exception of the vast majority of Christians, faithful adherence to the regulations of a 'divinely revealed' cultic law is fundamental in the religious life and identity of the remainder of the world's Abrahamics.
While scholars can vigorously debate the precise standpoint of the historical Jesus as regards Torah observance (a hugely complicated and contested area of academic dispute, which is best left to the accredited scholars), from the perspective of Christian orthodoxy - mainstream Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism - the case has always been pretty clear and incontrovertible; even as we admit of some development in the understanding of this doctrine, to take due account of advances in biblical scholarship since the time of the Church Fathers and vastly improved relations with the Jewish people.
In essence, mainstream Christianity today holds to a soft 'supersessionism' even as we now renounce 'replacement theology'. I would therefore make a subtle but useful distinction between the two concepts. The Old Covenant is understood as abrogated by the New Covenant in toto except for its moral truths (such as the Decalogue and others, which are only improved upon or refined but remain eternal in nature as ethical principles) without that, thereby, implying the Jewish people or the irrevocable promises given to them by God have been wholesale 'replaced' by the Church.
This is the dogmatic position of the Catholic Church. There is no 'super-cession' so far as the moral laws of the Old Testament are concerned (only progression, refinement or a spiritualization of the letter), although the cultic, civil, criminal, judicial and purity laws are all abrogated / no longer binding. It is a heresy, according to Catholicism both in the time of the Fathers of the early centuries and in our own time, to teach that the moral principles of the Tanakh are no longer valid - namely the heresy of "antinomianism" or Marcionism.
A more recent condemnation of this idea was delivered by Pope Pius XI's in his 1937 encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge which was addressed to the church in Nazi Germany:
Mit Brennender Sorge (March 14, 1937) | PIUS XI
The sacred books of the Old Testament are exclusively the word of God, and constitute a substantial part of his revelation; they are penetrated by a subdued light, harmonizing with the slow development of revelation, the dawn of the bright day of the redemption. As should be expected in historical and didactic books, they reflect in many particulars the imperfection, the weakness and sinfulness of man. But side by side with innumerable touches of greatness and nobleness, they also record the story of the chosen people, bearers of the Revelation and the Promise, repeatedly straying from God and turning to the world.
Eyes not blinded by prejudice or passion will see in this prevarication, as reported by the Biblical history, the luminous splendor of the divine light revealing the saving plan which finally triumphs over every fault and sin. It is precisely in the twilight of this background that one perceives the striking perspective of the divine tutorship of salvation, as it warms, admonishes, strikes, raises and beautifies its elect. Nothing but ignorance and pride could blind one to the treasures hoarded in the Old Testament.
16. Whoever wishes to see banished from church and school the Biblical history and the wise doctrines of the Old Testament, blasphemes the name of God, blasphemes the Almighty's plan of salvation, and makes limited and narrow human thought the judge of God's designs over the history of the world
Eyes not blinded by prejudice or passion will see in this prevarication, as reported by the Biblical history, the luminous splendor of the divine light revealing the saving plan which finally triumphs over every fault and sin. It is precisely in the twilight of this background that one perceives the striking perspective of the divine tutorship of salvation, as it warms, admonishes, strikes, raises and beautifies its elect. Nothing but ignorance and pride could blind one to the treasures hoarded in the Old Testament.
16. Whoever wishes to see banished from church and school the Biblical history and the wise doctrines of the Old Testament, blasphemes the name of God, blasphemes the Almighty's plan of salvation, and makes limited and narrow human thought the judge of God's designs over the history of the world
Last edited:
According to the Catholic Church, the moral truths of the Torah pertain to "the inner man" and it is this moral dimension of the OT 'law' which St. Paul describes himself as delighting in and as justifying people in God's sight: “for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified…” (Romans 2:13)
"For I delight in the law of God according to the inner man" (Romans 7:22)
The 'cultic', ceremonial, criminal, civil and purity laws however (including even the Sabbath commandment of the Decalogue, which had been for Saturday and the Early Christians changed to Sunday), are not binding on Christians because they pertain to the "outer man" and St. Paul refers to these as the 'works of the law': "we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified" (Galatians 2:16).
"Though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed” (2 Corinthians 4:16)
This distinction between the eternal and immutable 'moral' principles (the "law") of the Old Covenant and the temporary, mutable "works of the law" (the cultic, civil, criminal, purity laws) was reiterated in later sacred tradition by the Early Church Fathers:
Theodoret, Commentary on Romans (1839) Part 1
“The necessary commandments of the law were taught even by nature. That is, “You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor, honor your father and mother, and the rest of this kind.” But the commandments about the sabbath and circumcision and lepers and menstruation and sacrifice were peculiar to the [Jewish] law, since nature taught nothing about these matters. These are what he now calls works of the law. For these were symbols of other things. Nonetheless they were appropriate to the Jews in their due time."
-Blessed Theodoret ( 393 – 458 CE), Commentary on Galatians 2:15-16 (ACCS, NT, V. VIII, p. 31)
https://www.researchgate.net/public...tians_Introduction_Text_Translation_and_Notes
“Here he begins to demonstrate in what sense the grace of faith is sufficient for justification without the works of the law…. But so that this question may be carefully treated and no one may be deceived by ambiguities, we must first understand that the works of the law are twofold; for they reside partly in ceremonial ordinances and partly in morals. To the ordinances belong the circumcision of the flesh, the weekly sabbath, new moons, sacrifices and all the innumerable observances of this kind. But to morality belong “You shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not bear false witness” and so on. Could the apostle possibly not care whether a Christian were a murderer and adulterer or chaste and innocent, in the way that he does not care whether he is circumcised or uncircumcised in the flesh? He therefore is specially concerned with the works that consist in ceremonial ordinances, although he indicates that the others are sometimes bound up with them. But near the end of the letter he deals separately with those works that consist in morals… The contemplation of truth is found in the love of God alone, good morals in the love of God and the neighbor, and on these two precepts depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”
- St. Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430 AD), Commentary on Galatians 3:2, Migne PL 35:2117, (ACCS, NT, V. VIII, p. 36, emphasis added).
And some later authorities from both the Catholic and Protestant churches:-Blessed Theodoret ( 393 – 458 CE), Commentary on Galatians 2:15-16 (ACCS, NT, V. VIII, p. 31)
https://www.researchgate.net/public...tians_Introduction_Text_Translation_and_Notes
“Here he begins to demonstrate in what sense the grace of faith is sufficient for justification without the works of the law…. But so that this question may be carefully treated and no one may be deceived by ambiguities, we must first understand that the works of the law are twofold; for they reside partly in ceremonial ordinances and partly in morals. To the ordinances belong the circumcision of the flesh, the weekly sabbath, new moons, sacrifices and all the innumerable observances of this kind. But to morality belong “You shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not bear false witness” and so on. Could the apostle possibly not care whether a Christian were a murderer and adulterer or chaste and innocent, in the way that he does not care whether he is circumcised or uncircumcised in the flesh? He therefore is specially concerned with the works that consist in ceremonial ordinances, although he indicates that the others are sometimes bound up with them. But near the end of the letter he deals separately with those works that consist in morals… The contemplation of truth is found in the love of God alone, good morals in the love of God and the neighbor, and on these two precepts depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”
- St. Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430 AD), Commentary on Galatians 3:2, Migne PL 35:2117, (ACCS, NT, V. VIII, p. 36, emphasis added).
"The judicial precepts [of the Old Testament] did not bind for ever, but were annulled by the coming of Christ [...] In the ministry of the New Law, no punishment of death or of bodily maiming is appointed...As regards Peter, he did not put Ananias and Saphira to death...The Priests or Levites of the Old Testament were the ministers of the Old Law, which appointed corporal penalties." (St. Thomas Aquinas, SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The judicial precepts (Prima Secundae Partis, Q. 104), (1265–1274 CE))
“ Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience to the Commandments which are called Moral ” (Article VII of the Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England (1571))
“The moral law doth for ever bind all, the ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament; and the sundry judicial (or civil) laws of Israel expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other now" (chapter 19 of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1643-46))
“ Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience to the Commandments which are called Moral ” (Article VII of the Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England (1571))
“The moral law doth for ever bind all, the ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament; and the sundry judicial (or civil) laws of Israel expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other now" (chapter 19 of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1643-46))
As you can see from preceding, St. Thomas Aquinas (medieval Catholic theologian) and the Protestant Reformers believed that the 'moral law' of the Old Covenant was eternal (inasmuch as adultery is still wrong, exploitation of the poor is still wrong, murder is still wrong etc.) because it derived from natural law but that the 'ceremonial' and 'ritualistic' laws and the 'judicial' punishments were annulled and declared void, with Jesus adding nothing new in this respect to replace them (i.e. no new revealed civil & criminal law for the state). In addition, they believed as St. Thomas noted that the New Testament was also greater than the Old in that it improved upon it morally, as St. Thomas writes in the Summa: "the New Law is compared to the Old as the perfect to the imperfect. And accordingly the New Law fulfils the Old by supplying that which was lacking in the Old Law."
However, as St. Paul stated in the quotation near the top of my previous post: for anyone who 'thinks' in good conscience that God and/or his faith renders a certain activity 'unclean' (i.e. certain foods as with kosher or halal, alcohol, menstruation or ejaculation, shaving one's head, kissing of hands or any other cultic dietary, clothing or whatever else a given creed might proscribe in its purity laws), then it is indeed unclean for that individual and they should thus adhere to the dictates of their conscience and never violate the 'law' in question.
So in the Christian mindset, a Jew or a Muslim or a Baha'i would indeed be committing a sin for a violation of conscience if they decided to eat, touch or do something 'unclean' against their religious law, because they believe it to be God's will. But a Christian, whose conscience is clear in this respect because he understands purity as a matter solely of the heart/inner disposition of soul and thus believes that all things are clean, can do all these same things without incurring any sin, because he is free from 'cultic' religious law.
It is thus a matter between oneself and God, a matter of conscientious choice:
Romans 14:1-23
Again, one man thinks some days holier than others. Another man considers them all alike. Let every one be definite in his own convictions. If a man specially observes one particular day, he does so “to God”. The man who eats, eats “to God”, for he thanks God for the food. The man who fasts also does it “to God”, for he thanks God for the benefits of fasting. The faith you have, have as your own conviction before God.
Again, one man thinks some days holier than others. Another man considers them all alike. Let every one be definite in his own convictions. If a man specially observes one particular day, he does so “to God”. The man who eats, eats “to God”, for he thanks God for the food. The man who fasts also does it “to God”, for he thanks God for the benefits of fasting. The faith you have, have as your own conviction before God.
Jesus, however, taught his first disciples - as reflected in the synoptic gospels of Mark and Luke referenced at the top of my post - that true impurity proceeds solely from 'within' and not on account of anything coming from 'without'. St. Paul cites the same dominical tradition of Jesus about nothing being unclean in itself, which crops up in Mark and Luke, in Romans 14:14 and says that it "persuades and convinces" him of this truth (he thus provides antecedent and independent witness to this saying, one of the earliest teachings of Jesus we actually have).
Christians are thus 'liberated' from such "works of the law" which have no power to bind our consciences. If we want to eat kosher or halal or a vegetarian diet, we can do it but there is complete freedom for us to decide what is in accordance with the dictates of our individual conscience and what isn't. Everyone is free to decide for him or herself how he/she wishes to eat, dress, wash etc. Likewise, Christianity is compatible with all manner of different legal systems and cultural norms, unless any elements of them offend natural law or Christ's ethical teaching.
Galatians 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. All that matters is faith, expressed through love.
And so, for all these reasons St. Augustine of Hippo (most influential of the early church fathers in Catholicism and Protestantism) could write in his mammoth tome, The City of God (413–426 CE):For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. All that matters is faith, expressed through love.
Philip Schaff: NPNF1-02. St. Augustine's City of God and Christian Doctrine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
"It is a matter of no moment in the city of God whether he who adopts the faith that brings men to God adopts it in one dress and manner of life or another, so long only as he lives in conformity with the [ethical] commandments of God. And hence, when philosophers themselves become Christians, they are compelled, indeed, to abandon their erroneous doctrines, but not their dress and mode of living, which are no obstacle to religion...
This heavenly city [the Church], then, while it sojourns on earth, calls citizens out of all nations, and gathers together a society of pilgrims of all languages, not scrupling about diversities in the manners, laws, and institutions whereby earthly peace is secured and maintained, but recognizing that, however various these are, they all tend to one and the same end of earthly peace. It therefore is so far from rescinding and abolishing these diversities, that it even preserves and adopts them, so long only as no hindrance to the worship of the one supreme and true God is thus introduced." (De civitate Dei Ch. XXV)
This heavenly city [the Church], then, while it sojourns on earth, calls citizens out of all nations, and gathers together a society of pilgrims of all languages, not scrupling about diversities in the manners, laws, and institutions whereby earthly peace is secured and maintained, but recognizing that, however various these are, they all tend to one and the same end of earthly peace. It therefore is so far from rescinding and abolishing these diversities, that it even preserves and adopts them, so long only as no hindrance to the worship of the one supreme and true God is thus introduced." (De civitate Dei Ch. XXV)
Last edited:
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
No, I don't think you're bad; I just think you're being silly.
Re: #1. No, it isn't.
Re: #2. Calling "replacement theology" replacement theology is not going to silence the truth because that's not the reason for calling "replacement theology" replacement theology.
Re: #3. There may be people who misunderstand scriptures and/or want to please other people who say "replacement theology"; but your belief that all people who say "replacement theology" misunderstand scriptures and want to please other people is false.
Excuse me? You've missed the boat there somewhere.
In fact, it is possible to please God and to please some people some of the time. The way you say it makes me think that you believe you please God by annoying the bejeezus out of people. The fact that you believe things that are common features of replacement theology suggests to me that you enjoy saying them because they annoy people, so therefore you must be pleasing God.
Got news for ya, kiddo. It really is possible to love your neighbor and speak the truth to them in love and not believe in replacement theology.
The idea that Christianity supersedes Judaism is found most clearly in Paul's letters and the gospel of John and Acts. It's not noticeable in the synoptics (Mark, Matthew, Luke) and indeed in Matthew 5 it's flatly contradicted:
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. 18 For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
The history of Christianity shows that Paul was right. Christianity caught on in Rome and around the eastern Roman empire early, but it never really became a force in Judea / Israel. Instead Jewish nationalism led to the wars with Rome, the destruction of Jerusalem, Temple and all, in 70 CE, and so on.
An incident of this was the debate over the requirement of circumcision, which is the symbol of God's covenant with the Jews:
Genesis 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. 8 And I will give to you, and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." 9 And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 his is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.
Which doesn't seem ambiguous. However, Paul, finding that it gets in the way of sales among the gentiles, insists it goes:
Galatians 5:2 Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love.
and
1 Corinthians 18 Was any one at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was any one at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. 19 For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. 20 Every one should remain in the state in which he was called.
The kindest word for Paul's argument is, perhaps, 'pragmatic'. But that's how salesmen are, and if you're a Christian you say he's justified by his results.
74x12
Well-Known Member
Did you coin the term "replacement theology"? Who coined that term and why?
You just jumped on the band wagon. I can tell you it's complete nonsense and doesn't hold water when compared with the actual things the Bible teaches.
Since you don't argue against the substance of my posts; but rather use labels and you get personal. That suggests to me that you do want to silence me; rather than actually refuting me.
You have to disprove my beliefs; to change my mind. You haven't done that.
All you've done so far is imply that I'm annoying on purpose and that I am child. So I don't think this discussion is going anywhere useful.
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
It ain't and that's why I'm putting you on my "Ignore" list.