Ben Masada Posted September 22, 2014 #1 Share Posted September 22, 2014 The Magna Carta of RT - Gal. 4:21-31 &. Needless to remind of, RT stands for Replacement Theology. 1. Gal. 4:21 - It means that the Church of Galatia used to be a Nazarene synagogue which Paul had overturned into a Christian church. 2. Gal. 4:22 - Abraham had two sons: Ishmael with Agar and Isaac with Sarah. 3. Gal. 4:23 - Ishmael was born after the flesh and Isaac was born after the promise. 4. Gal. 4:24 - Two Covenants: The Jewish one points to bondange after Agar. 5. Gal. 4:25 - Agar points to Jerusalem in bondage under the Jews. 6. Gal. 4:26 - The Promised Jerusalem from above is free and the mother of Christianity. 7. Gal. 4:27 - Christians must rejoice as Sarah for mothering many more children aka Christians. 8. Gal. 4:28 - Christians, after Isaac, are the children of the promise in Jesus. 9. Gal. 4:29 - Jews who are born after the flesh persecute Christians who are born of the spirit. 10. Gal. 4:30 - Scripture says to cast out Agar aka the Jewish covenant and her son aka the Jews for they shall not be heir with Isaac aka Christians, the son of Sarah aka Christianity. 11. Gal. 4:31 - Christians are not children of Agar, the bond woman but of Sarah the free one. 12. Conclusion - Can any one still claim that there is no RT in the NT? Hardly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1029 Posted September 22, 2014 #2 Share Posted September 22, 2014 I fail to follow your contorted reasoning. Could you please explain how you came up with those meanings from those verses. Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Greenman Posted September 22, 2014 #3 Share Posted September 22, 2014 I have no clue as to what that is about. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davros of Skaro Posted September 23, 2014 #4 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Just look at it that what Paul is saying.Through faith in Jesus anyone becomes adopted into a spiritual family.Paul is talking what was given to the patriarchs and what is now revealed in Jesus Christ. Early Christianity is taking OT verses out of context as if it had hidden meanings. Philo of Alexandria's Jesus? http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=270932 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Masada Posted September 23, 2014 Author #5 Share Posted September 23, 2014 I fail to follow your contorted reasoning. Could you please explain how you came up with those meanings from those verses. Doug Sorry Doug, but you are going to have to read the thread again and be more specific about how and why you don't agree with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Masada Posted September 23, 2014 Author #6 Share Posted September 23, 2014 I have no clue as to what that is about. No surprising as Christians do not read their own Bible, the NT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Masada Posted September 23, 2014 Author #7 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Just look at it that what Paul is saying.Through faith in Jesus anyone becomes adopted into a spiritual family.Paul is talking what was given to the patriarchs and what is now revealed in Jesus Christ. Early Christianity is taking OT verses out of context as if it had hidden meanings. Philo of Alexandria's Jesus? Davros of Skaro, I couldn't have said it better myself. And just to add to it with your permission, this is vandalism of Judaism with the things of Christianity which is akin to Replacement Theology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1029 Posted September 23, 2014 #8 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Sorry Doug, but you are going to have to read the thread again and be more specific about how and why you don't agree with me. I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing. I just want to know what you're trying to say. Galatians 4:21: Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? How do you get "that the Church of Galatia used to be a Nazarene synagogue which Paul had overturned into a Christian church" from that verse? Even if you look at other verses for context, it doesn't say that. You can make up your own interpretations and religion, but you're not allowed to make up your own facts. Same with some of the other verses. You're trying to read things into them that aren't there. Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Masada Posted September 23, 2014 Author #9 Share Posted September 23, 2014 I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing. I just want to know what you're trying to say. Galatians 4:21: Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? How do you get "that the Church of Galatia used to be a Nazarene synagogue which Paul had overturned into a Christian church" from that verse? Even if you look at other verses for context, it doesn't say that. You can make up your own interpretations and religion, but you're not allowed to make up your own facts. Same with some of the other verses. You're trying to read things into them that aren't there. Doug Good question and, I understand why you have to ask it. You are not aware of the NT. The Sect of the Nazarenes was a Jewish branch that was called in the First Century the "New Way" . (Acts 9:1,2) It was organized by the Apostles of Jesus in his memory and started making converts among Jews and Gentiles. Paul tried to join the Sect and was rejected on the basis that he could not be a disciple not only because of his past hostility to the Sect but also because of his strange gospel of idolatry. (Acts 9:20) The Nazarenes were all staunch defenders of the Law, hence the reason why they were allowed to headquarter themselves in Jerusalem and preach their gospel without being bothered by the local Jews. (Acts 21:20) Then, Paul went frustrated for being rejected by the Apostles and started spreading his gospel throughout Jerusalem. Soon enough, he had the Jews after him to arrest and bring him to the Sanhedrin. (Acts 9:29) The Nazarenes were too legalists and Paul was too liberal. He used to say that his gospel was not learned from the Apostles. (Gal. 1:17) Then he would get upset that the Galatians were abandoning him and returning to the gospel of the Law preached by the Nazarenes. (Gal. 1:6) That's why he implied his frustration to see Galatians asking to return to the gospel of the Apostles which was according to the Law. (Gal. 14:21) That's the reason why the church of the Galatians had previously belong to the Nazarenes and wanted to return to them. Here to the Galatians, Paul spoke against the Law. But to the Corinthians he spoke personally against the Apostles if you read II Cor. 11:4-13. He probably had listened to the gospel of the Apostles, concluded that they were preaching a different gospel about a different Jesus and considered them as false apostles. Now, I hope, you can see where I got the idea that the church of the Galatians was a former Nazarene synagogue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davros of Skaro Posted September 24, 2014 #10 Share Posted September 24, 2014 (edited) Davros of Skaro, I couldn't have said it better myself. And just to add to it with your permission, this is vandalism of Judaism with the things of Christianity which is akin to Replacement Theology. You got it! Christianity is a culmination and fusion of trends of the era while ripping from the pages of the OT.It's kind of like what Islam and Mormonism did but the clues of the crime have been heavily filtered through time with Christianity. I highly suggest you watch the videos linked here and in my signature.I wish Doug would watch them because it might change some of his thoughts on the subject?If Doug can find the time to eat and post on UM, he can find the time to watch four videos that are less than 5 hours combined. Richard Carrier: Acts as Historical Fiction Jesus is the greatest Bullocks story ever ever told hands down. Edited September 24, 2014 by davros of skaro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1029 Posted September 24, 2014 #11 Share Posted September 24, 2014 (edited) Good question and, I understand why you have to ask it. You are not aware of the NT. The Sect of the Nazarenes was a Jewish branch that was called in the First Century the "New Way" . (Acts 9:1,2) It was organized by the Apostles of Jesus in his memory and started making converts among Jews and Gentiles. Paul tried to join the Sect and was rejected on the basis that he could not be a disciple not only because of his past hostility to the Sect but also because of his strange gospel of idolatry. (Acts 9:20) The Nazarenes were all staunch defenders of the Law, hence the reason why they were allowed to headquarter themselves in Jerusalem and preach their gospel without being bothered by the local Jews. (Acts 21:20) Then, Paul went frustrated for being rejected by the Apostles and started spreading his gospel throughout Jerusalem. Soon enough, he had the Jews after him to arrest and bring him to the Sanhedrin. (Acts 9:29) The Nazarenes were too legalists and Paul was too liberal. He used to say that his gospel was not learned from the Apostles. (Gal. 1:17) Then he would get upset that the Galatians were abandoning him and returning to the gospel of the Law preached by the Nazarenes. (Gal. 1:6) That's why he implied his frustration to see Galatians asking to return to the gospel of the Apostles which was according to the Law. (Gal. 14:21) That's the reason why the church of the Galatians had previously belong to the Nazarenes and wanted to return to them. Here to the Galatians, Paul spoke against the Law. But to the Corinthians he spoke personally against the Apostles if you read II Cor. 11:4-13. He probably had listened to the gospel of the Apostles, concluded that they were preaching a different gospel about a different Jesus and considered them as false apostles. Now, I hope, you can see where I got the idea that the church of the Galatians was a former Nazarene synagogue. So you took a bunch of verses from other places, made up a story to go with them and use that story to explain verses that barely even mention the things your story is about. That's what I would call a real leap of faith. Ever looked at those places mentioned in the Exodus? They leave Rephidim and go to a place only four-and-a-half miles to the northwest where they burn down the camp. Then all of a sudden they're 60 miles away toward the northeast. In another place they leave Kibroth-hataava (sp) headed toward Elath which is three or four days away to the northeast and all of a sudden they're in north-central Sinai, headed southeast toward Elath which is now twelve days away. They must have been making a movie. I guess you don't have to stick to what makes sense when you really believe. Doug Edited September 24, 2014 by Doug1029 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emmisal Posted September 24, 2014 #12 Share Posted September 24, 2014 The Magna Carta of RT - Gal. 4:21-31 &. Needless to remind of, RT stands for Replacement Theology. 1. Gal. 4:21 - It means that the Church of Galatia used to be a Nazarene synagogue which Paul had overturned into a Christian church. 2. Gal. 4:22 - Abraham had two sons: Ishmael with Agar and Isaac with Sarah. 3. Gal. 4:23 - Ishmael was born after the flesh and Isaac was born after the promise. 4. Gal. 4:24 - Two Covenants: The Jewish one points to bondange after Agar. 5. Gal. 4:25 - Agar points to Jerusalem in bondage under the Jews. 6. Gal. 4:26 - The Promised Jerusalem from above is free and the mother of Christianity. 7. Gal. 4:27 - Christians must rejoice as Sarah for mothering many more children aka Christians. 8. Gal. 4:28 - Christians, after Isaac, are the children of the promise in Jesus. 9. Gal. 4:29 - Jews who are born after the flesh persecute Christians who are born of the spirit. 10. Gal. 4:30 - Scripture says to cast out Agar aka the Jewish covenant and her son aka the Jews for they shall not be heir with Isaac aka Christians, the son of Sarah aka Christianity. 11. Gal. 4:31 - Christians are not children of Agar, the bond woman but of Sarah the free one. 12. Conclusion - Can any one still claim that there is no RT in the NT? Hardly! It's no Replacement Theology, it is called the New Covenant as prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-34. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davros of Skaro Posted September 24, 2014 #13 Share Posted September 24, 2014 It's no Replacement Theology, it is called the New Covenant as prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-34. And fulfilled in the minds of Schizophrenics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emmisal Posted September 24, 2014 #14 Share Posted September 24, 2014 And fulfilled in the minds of Schizophrenics. You can go ahead and spit out all your hatred. It doesn't change anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davros of Skaro Posted September 24, 2014 #15 Share Posted September 24, 2014 You can go ahead and spit out all your hatred. It doesn't change anything. I know, for you. o.O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Masada Posted September 27, 2014 Author #16 Share Posted September 27, 2014 So you took a bunch of verses from other places, made up a story to go with them and use that story to explain verses that barely even mention the things your story is about. That's what I would call a real leap of faith. Ever looked at those places mentioned in the Exodus? They leave Rephidim and go to a place only four-and-a-half miles to the northwest where they burn down the camp. Then all of a sudden they're 60 miles away toward the northeast. In another place they leave Kibroth-hataava (sp) headed toward Elath which is three or four days away to the northeast and all of a sudden they're in north-central Sinai, headed southeast toward Elath which is now twelve days away. They must have been making a movie. I guess you don't have to stick to what makes sense when you really believe. Doug At least, you are right about some thing: That if I believe Doug, I will never stick to what makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Masada Posted September 27, 2014 Author #17 Share Posted September 27, 2014 It's no Replacement Theology, it is called the New Covenant as prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-34. Really! I hope you are aware that the New Covenant prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-34 was established with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. No reference to Gentiles, although they are invited to join in and even get a name better than that of sons and daughters if they do it according to Isaiah 56:1-8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emmisal Posted September 27, 2014 #18 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Really! I hope you are aware that the New Covenant prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-34 was established with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. No reference to Gentiles, although they are invited to join in and even get a name better than that of sons and daughters if they do it according to Isaiah 56:1-8. Yes, that's why Jesus focused specifically on Israel (Matt. 15:24). But after his resurrection, he sent his disciples beyond Israel, to the whole world (Matt. 28:19) because even the Tanach contains evidence of God's plan to extend his covenant to the gentiles (Micah 4:2, and you also mentioned Isaiah 56). And so the Messiah started with the Jews for whom the covenant was originally meant for and when they believed, he had it extended to the gentiles according to God's plan, so that the real chosen nation could no longer be the physical Israel but all those who believe in Christ as the Messiah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Masada Posted September 27, 2014 Author #19 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Yes, that's why Jesus focused specifically on Israel (Matt. 15:24). But after his resurrection, he sent his disciples beyond Israel, to the whole world (Matt. 28:19) because even the Tanach contains evidence of God's plan to extend his covenant to the gentiles (Micah 4:2, and you also mentioned Isaiah 56). And so the Messiah started with the Jews for whom the covenant was originally meant for and when they believed, he had it extended to the gentiles according to God's plan, so that the real chosen nation could no longer be the physical Israel but all those who believe in Christ as the Messiah. As Judaism is concerned, the inclusion of Gentiles within the Covenant of God with His People has been always the policy if you read Isaiah 56:1-8 but it must be according to Halacha aka Jewish law and not according to the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology of a grafting without using the Jewish route. Hence Isaiah declared that Israel was assigned as light unto the Gentiles. (Isa. 42:6) That's why I wonder why Jesus would forbid his disciples to take the gospel of salvation to the Gentiles. (Mat. 10:5,6) Now, as Matthew 28:19 is concerned, it was written 50+ years after Jesus had been gone. Therefore, it must have come out of the pen of the Hellenist who wrote that gospel, a former disciple of Paul. And last but not least, your "so that the real chosen nation could no longer be the physical Israel but all those who believe in Christ as the Messiah" is the climax of Replacement Theology. BTW, according to some scholars RT is a kind of Christian anti-Semitism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Paranoid Android Posted September 28, 2014 #20 Share Posted September 28, 2014 (edited) BTW, according to some scholars RT is a kind of Christian anti-Semitism. And which scholars are these? Names, please. If you can produce such scholars (I doubt you can) I guarantee you they will be Jews who have a chip on their shoulder against Christianity. More likely you just want to pull out the word "anti-Semitism" because of the stigma attached to it, associating all Christians with hate groups like the KKK. Edited September 28, 2014 by Paranoid Android Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Masada Posted October 1, 2014 Author #21 Share Posted October 1, 2014 And which scholars are these? Names, please. If you can produce such scholars (I doubt you can) I guarantee you they will be Jews who have a chip on their shoulder against Christianity. More likely you just want to pull out the word "anti-Semitism" because of the stigma attached to it, associating all Christians with hate groups like the KKK. KKK! The KKK is way back in the line of anti-Semites throughout the History of the Jewish People. Try to read about the pogroms, blood libels, Crusades, Inquisition and, worse of them all, the Holocaust. If they were not all cooked in the Christian fire, the food in the pot was seasoned with Christian salt. Now, for the scholars, I said "some" of the scholars. It gives me the margin to forget names and still be true to my claim. And for the chip on the Jewish shoulder, you might as well make of it a fracture on the shoulder after you read a History of the Jews. [/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Paranoid Android Posted October 2, 2014 #22 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Now, for the scholars, I said "some" of the scholars. It gives me the margin to forget names and still be true to my claim. And for the chip on the Jewish shoulder, you might as well make of it a fracture on the shoulder after you read a History of the Jews. [/size] It also gives you the benefit of making prejudicial claims without elaboration. Assuming your statement is true allow me to paraphrase to better reflect the truth - "two or three fringe Jewish scholars think of RT as a form of Christian anti-Semitism". Sound more reflective of things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluefinger Posted October 6, 2014 #23 Share Posted October 6, 2014 The Magna Carta of RT - Gal. 4:21-31 &. Needless to remind of, RT stands for Replacement Theology. 1. Gal. 4:21 - It means that the Church of Galatia used to be a Nazarene synagogue which Paul had overturned into a Christian church. 2. Gal. 4:22 - Abraham had two sons: Ishmael with Agar and Isaac with Sarah. 3. Gal. 4:23 - Ishmael was born after the flesh and Isaac was born after the promise. 4. Gal. 4:24 - Two Covenants: The Jewish one points to bondange after Agar. 5. Gal. 4:25 - Agar points to Jerusalem in bondage under the Jews. 6. Gal. 4:26 - The Promised Jerusalem from above is free and the mother of Christianity. 7. Gal. 4:27 - Christians must rejoice as Sarah for mothering many more children aka Christians. 8. Gal. 4:28 - Christians, after Isaac, are the children of the promise in Jesus. 9. Gal. 4:29 - Jews who are born after the flesh persecute Christians who are born of the spirit. 10. Gal. 4:30 - Scripture says to cast out Agar aka the Jewish covenant and her son aka the Jews for they shall not be heir with Isaac aka Christians, the son of Sarah aka Christianity. 11. Gal. 4:31 - Christians are not children of Agar, the bond woman but of Sarah the free one. 12. Conclusion - Can any one still claim that there is no RT in the NT? Hardly! Paul was reasoning that Gentiles have just as much access to the promises of Abraham as Jews. That's all. In the OT, the LORD said that he was giving the Israelites the land of Caanan for no other reason than the fact that those that lived there at the time were very wicked. His expectation was that the Israelites would take care of the land and bring in righteousness. They didn't. Twice. Paul is making the case that the flesh is of little consequence if you do not have faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Masada Posted October 10, 2014 Author #24 Share Posted October 10, 2014 It also gives you the benefit of making prejudicial claims without elaboration. Assuming your statement is true allow me to paraphrase to better reflect the truth - "two or three fringe Jewish scholars think of RT as a form of Christian anti-Semitism". Sound more reflective of things? Now, go back and check the post where you took this statement from. I did not say "Jewish scholars" but "a few scholars". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted October 10, 2014 #25 Share Posted October 10, 2014 To some people any scholar they don't agree with is "fringe." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now