Replacement Theology

[Ben Masada]

My point was, that if christianity had not evolved from judaism there would not be many more jews in the world today than there are now, but a lot of people may never have encountered god.They came to god via the nature of christianity, because christianity made them "welcome" and made god accessible to many races cultures etc. I dont have much time for exclusivist believers, from any religion.

I am going to reply by parts of your long post, considering that you don't have much time for exclusivist believers, from any religon.

How could Christianity, a Hellenistic religion have evolved from a strict monotheistic way of life as Judaism is? Then, you say that if Christianity had not evolved from Judaism, there would not be many more Jews today. IMO, the opposite is rather true. If Christianity had quit to claim that it evolved from Judaism, we would have a few millions more of Jews than we have today. And about people encountering God, we were a very proselytizing people in the First Century and up to the 4th Century, when, in 310 ACE, Christianity was adopted by Emperor Constantine to be the official religion of the Empire. The first edict by the Church was to forbid Jewish prozelytizing under penalty of death. That's when our sages forbade Jews to get involved with proselytizing Gentiles to avoid problem with the Church. But, from the beginning, according to Ezekiel 20:41, it was by means of Israel that God would manifest His glory in the sight of the nations. BTW, whom do you attribute the gospel being spread among the Gentiles? To Jesus, it couldn't be because Jesus himself forbade the disciples to take the gospel to the Gentiles. Read Matthew 10:5,6. To Paul, it could not be because Paul never decided to turn to the Gentiles. All his life was to work in the synagogues of the Jews. Since his first station in Damascus, according to Acts 9:1,2 and until his last station in Rome, according to Acts 28:17. Perhaps to the Church in the 4th Century when it had become the religion of Rome?

Ben

Edited May 3, 2012 by Ben Masada

[Ben Masada]

Acts 2:36 isn't "blaming" the Jews or passing judgment on them or finding fault with them. It merely states a fact, that the crucifixion of Jesus was called for by the Jews. In the context of that passage, Peter is proclaiming the divinity of Jesus, not condemning the Jews.

Please J.K., we are here, two relatively intelligent people discussing an issue from what has been recorded and not from hear-say. I have a handling of enough English to understand that, when Acts 2:14 says, "You, who are Jews, indeed all of you in Jerusalem..." could not have been the words of a Jewish person. A Jew would never address a Jewish audience in those words. The speaker, therefore, was not a Jewish person, and much less Peter, who knew that the Romans were the ones who had crucifed Jesus.

And second, I also understand from Acts 2:36 that, "...this Jesus whom you crucified," is an accusation that the Jews had crucified Jesus. So, please, give me some credit, or at least, the benefit of the doubt that I am not so stupid as you have made me feel. The only extra thing I would like to have from you is that you should never say again that Christians have NEVER blamed the Jews with having crucified Jesus. I have showed the evidence in your own NT, I have witnessed it in forum debates, and watched in TV evagelism even more than several times.

Ben

[J. K.]

How could Christianity, a Hellenistic religion have evolved from a strict monotheistic way of life as Judaism is?

\

Who is the son mentioned in Isaiah 9:1-7, who is called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace”?

BTW, whom do you attribute the gospel being spread among the Gentiles? To Jesus, it couldn't be because Jesus himself forbade the disciples to take the gospel to the Gentiles. Read Matthew 10:5,6.

In Matthew 10, Jesus instructed his disciples what to do on one specific journey, not for the remainder of their ministries.

To Paul, it could not be because Paul never decided to turn to the Gentiles. All his life was to work in the synagogues of the Jews.

Ephesians 3:1-11 is Paul’s testimony that he was to directly minister the Gospel to the Gentiles.

That the Gentiles were to be blessed by God was revealed in Isaiah 49:1-7.

[Ben Masada]

Given how wide the umbrella called "Christianity" is, one would have to be insane to ascertain that "Christians" don't believe that Christianity replaced Judaism. If one looks hard enough one will find "Christians" who believe just about anything one looks for.

Having said that, what I think we can say is that the Bible does not teach that Christianity replaced Judaism. What the Bible does seem to teach is that Israel consistently broke the covenant that had been established between them and God, and although God has never stopped claiming Israel as His people, the people of Israel replaced the true covenant with religion. We see that God esablished a new covenant which is not limited just to Israel, but includes anyone and everyone who will acknowledge that Jesus's death is the only true and complete payment for their sins, and the sacrifice is offered to all as an act of grace by God.

What was "replaced" in the New Testament was religiosity--ritual, dogma and adherence to man-made religious laws and regulations--with true spirituality. We see the religion that had replaced a true adherence to the Law, shown to be the opposite of what God was seeking. Although we see this rejection happen to Judaism, that is only because of the focus on Israel throughout Scripture, but really, what Scripture shows is a rejection of ALL religiosity, a replacement of ALL religiosity with a true and humble spiritual walk.

IamsSon, the issue we are discussing here is not that Christianity has replaced Judaism, because it hasn't, but the fever to promote the Pauline policy of Replacement

Theology. I am ready to admit that we have broken some items of the Divine Covenant established with us, but there is an enormous difference between breaking and

rejecting. To break is human; to reject is insurrection. According to Isaiah 1:18,19, whenever we want to set things right with God, so that our sins, from scarlet red become as white as snow, all we have to do is to repent and obey. Of course, we have to pay for our sins according to the law of cause and effect. If you read Jeremiah 46:28, you will see that, of the other nations, the Almighty will eventually make an end of them, but of Israel, He will only chastise as we deserve. It means, God has not rejected us as we have not rejected His Covenant made with us.

And the reason why we cannot recognize that Jesus' death was the true payment for our sins it is because such a doctrine goes straight against God's Word which says that "Only through his own fault shall anyone die." (Jer. 31:30) Also, "Him only who has sinned against Me, will I strike out of the book of life." (Exo. 32:33) Also, "Only the one who sins shall die." (Eze. 18:20)

Ben

[J. K.]

I have a handling of enough English to understand that, when Acts 2:14 says, "You, who are Jews, indeed all of you in Jerusalem..." could not have been the words of a Jewish person. A Jew would never address a Jewish audience in those words.

I do admit that I am not a Jew, so if there is a cultural injunction here, I would like to know. Specifically what part of “You, who are Jews, indeed all of you in Jerusalem” would not be said by a Jew, and why?

And second, I also understand from Acts 2:36 that, "...this Jesus whom you crucified," is an accusation that the Jews had crucified Jesus.

This statement is made to identify a specific individual by incident, and is not given as an accusation. It would be no different to say “this Jesus who preached in the temple”. It is an identifying characteristic, not a portioning of blame.

It certainly was not my intent to make you feel stupid; I sincerely apologize that you received that implication.

The only extra thing I would like to have from you is that you should never say again that Christians have NEVER blamed the Jews with having crucified Jesus. I have showed the evidence in your own NT, I have witnessed it in forum debates, and watched in TV evagelism even more than several times.

My statement was that the specific Scripture mentioned was not an accusation. I am well aware that statements have been made in the past which cast Jews in the light of cold-blooded killers. However, I can assure you that such behavior is not condoned by the majority of Christians, nor is there is indoctrination literature which supports such a viewpoint.

[Bella-Angelique]

Christianity evolved from the Nazarites.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11395-nazarite

It is not evil, just evolved.

When change brings more acceptance and a better standard of living to many, that is not evil.

Just as women could take a vow to become a Nazarite, Christianity evolved from that to lift all women up.

Lifting all women up is not evil. It advances world peace and civilization.

[Ben Masada]

\

Who is the son mentioned in Isaiah 9:1-7, who is called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace”?

In Matthew 10, Jesus instructed his disciples what to do on one specific journey, not for the remainder of their ministries.

Ephesians 3:1-11 is Paul’s testimony that he was to directly minister the Gospel to the Gentiles.

That the Gentiles were to be blessed by God was revealed in Isaiah 49:1-7.

About Isaiah 9:1-7, that was a prophecy about the Gentiles in the District of the Gentiles in Galilee, who would welcome the Jewish People returning from exile in Babylon, after 70 years, according to Jeremiah 25:11,12.

Regarding Matthew 10:5,6, what do you want me to do, to take your word for it or to ask for a quote to prove what you have said? I'll go for the quote. So, get busy

And for Isaiah 49:1-7, would you please reread verse 3? That the Gentiles would be blessed by God "...through Israel, whom I show My glory," said the Almighty, the Holy One of Israel Who has chosen you. (Isa. 49:7)

Last but not least, can you show me in your NT, when did Paul decide to ministry to the Gentiles? I can't find it. Oh, BTW, I found something here about a decision he took to turn to the Gentiles. He was in the synagogue of Antioch, when the Jews gave him such a hard time that he got upset and said, "...we now turn to the Gentiles!" (Acts 13:46) He left the Jewish synagogue of Antioch and went to the synagogue of Iconium.(Acts 14:1) Something, isn't it? Who could understand Paul? The man could never be original. He had to build his church with the former Gentiles converted by the Jews.

Ben

[Jor-el]

Hey Jorel, I am aware of that method to try to fit the text according to the context. If the evils of Christianity are pointed out, the champions immediately come to the rescue by denying that those who perpetrated the evil brought to their attention were not real Christians but had a different agenda in mind. If the deed is good, silence is the reaction of approval.

Now, with regarding to your statement above, that Christians NEVER blamed the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus, I am much obliged to thank you for the confirmation of my views that the guy who wrote that speech in Acts 2 was not a Jewish person nor a Christian one. Therefore, he was not Peter. And, as you say that Christians have NEVER blamed the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus, who was that guy who said: "You who are Jews, indeed all of you in Jerusalem! Listen to what I have to say (Acts 2:14) and then, in verse 36, he charged the Jews with having crucified Jesus. This is a strong evidence that Christians did not at that time existed. That they started with Paul, according to Acts 11:26 in the city of Antioch, when the disciples of Paul were called Christians for the first time.

Of course, you cannot accept such a report, because it would be tantamount to a collapse of Christianity. Well, if Logic won't cause that collapse here, contradiction will. Contradictions serve only to discredit the status of any book which is claimed to have been Divinely inspired.

Ben

You couldn't be further from the truth Ben.

There's not a single line of Pauls that you can quote that will ever prove your point. Let me put it more clearly. If it weren't for the love christians held and still hold for the Jewish people, there would be no Israel. Read that however you want, but in any way you choose to read it, it is true.

Peter in the text above which you quote, is clear on one thing, the Jews did not recognize their own Messiah when he came, the despised him and rejected him. Through their acts he was indeed crucified, but it was gentiles who actually did the act itself. Who do you think is more to blame, the Jews or the gentiles?

Let us not forget that Jews are men, they are neither more sanctified or more holy than the next guy, they have human failings as well, or do you think that is the province of gentiles? So yes they participated, but they are as much to blame as the gentiles.

There is no single group that bears the blame alone. If that is what you think the gospel preaches then you have not done your homework.

Hate is a bad thing my friend, it sours the heart, and shatters the soul.

[Ben Masada]

I do admit that I am not a Jew, so if there is a cultural injunction here, I would like to know. Specifically what part of “You, who are Jews, indeed all of you in Jerusalem” would not be said by a Jew, and why?

Who then would address to Jews by saying, "you who are Jews, listen to me." Only a non-Jew. Probably Luke himself who was not Jewish. Only a Gentile would accuse the Jews with having killed Jesus. I can't put any more clear than that.

This statement is made to identify a specific individual by incident, and is not given as an accusation. It would be no different to say “this Jesus who preached in the temple”. It is an identifying characteristic, not a portioning of blame.

It certainly was not my intent to make you feel stupid; I sincerely apologize that you received that implication.

How could the statement be made to identify a specific individual if the speaker had already intruduced his speech to the crowd of Jews listening to him? Please!

My statement was that the specific Scripture mentioned was not an accusation. I am well aware that statements have been made in the past which cast Jews in the light of cold-blooded killers. However, I can assure you that such behavior is not condoned by the majority of Christians, nor is there is indoctrination literature which supports such a viewpoint.

"This Jesus whom you crucified." If this is not an accusation, and mind you, stated in the public domain to a crowd of Jews, I don't know English.

Ben

Edited May 3, 2012 by Ben Masada

[Ben Masada]

Christianity evolved from the Nazarites.

http://www.jewishenc.../11395-nazarite

It is not evil, just evolved. When change brings more acceptance and a better standard of living to many, that is not evil. Just as women could take a vow to become a Nazarite, Christianity evolved from that to lift all women up. Lifting all women up is not evil. It advances world peace and civilization.

Sorry Bella, but this is a non-sequitur. Nazarite was not a religion but a vow. Christianity did not come from a vow. Christianity came from Hellenism. Paul was born of well-to-do Hellenistic parents in the city of Tarsus in the Cilicia, after it had been conquered by Rome. And Paul was the one who gave rise to Christianity in the city of Antioch, about 35 years after Jesus had been gone.

Ben

Edited May 3, 2012 by Ben Masada

[eight bits]

Only a Gentile would accuse the Jews with having killed Jesus.

The very earliest surviving piece of Christian literature is Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians. Its author is a Jew. At 2: 14-15. Paul writes

For you, brothers, have become imitators of the churches of God that are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you suffer the same things from your compatriots as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets and persecuted us; they do not please God, and are opposed to everyone

Of course, until not long before, Paul himself had been among the Jews persecuting "us." Jews appear not to be the only persecutors of "us." Not all Jews are doing the persecution, since the Judean victims are also Jewish. However, those Jews who persecute the church in Judea also killed Jesus, according to Paul, in black letters.

We don't know Luke's source for Peter's speech in Acts 2: 14-40. It is, however, a public speech, and apparently extemporaneous, so it is unreasonable to infer that the patently oratorical

This man, delivered up by the set plan and foreknowledge of God, you killed, using lawless men to crucify him (verse 23) ... Therefore let the whole house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified. (verse 36)

implies that the speaker holds every Jew in his audience personally responsible for crucifying Jesus. The accusation is just too plainly rhetorical and exaggerated to be taken literally.

However, it is indisputable that the speech says that those responsible for the judicial murder of Jesus were Jewish. And, not to interrupt Jor-el while he's taking cheap shots at Roman Catholics, but this has been the teaching of the Christian church from the beginning, that the murderers of Jesus were Jewish.

The earliest first-person record of a Christian official making that accusation was the letter of a Jew. It cannot be excluded, then, that another Jew made a speech like what is reported in Acts 2.

[Jor-el]

And, not to interrupt Jor-el while he's taking cheap shots at Roman Catholics, but this has been the teaching of the Christian church from the beginning, that the murderers of Jesus were Jewish.

They are not cheap shots... they are historical shots. When one could buy the Papacy, and usurp it under extortion, anything goes. When the church entered politcs it lost its heart. There were a few memorable and christian Popes, a very small minority, when 265 of them are on record.

I would suggest that what we see in the papacy today has absolutely nothing to do with what on then... When you consider that a Borgia could be Pope, then what else could I possibly say.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Jor-el

[Ben Masada]

You couldn't be further from the truth Ben.

There's not a single line of Pauls that you can quote that will ever prove your point. Let me put it more clearly. If it weren't for the love christians held and still hold for the Jewish people, there would be no Israel. Read that however you want, but in any way you choose to read it, it is true.

Peter in the text above which you quote, is clear on one thing, the Jews did not recognize their own Messiah when he came, the despised him and rejected him. Through their acts he was indeed crucified, but it was gentiles who actually did the act itself. Who do you think is more to blame, the Jews or the gentiles?

Let us not forget that Jews are men, they are neither more sanctified or more holy than the next guy, they have human failings as well, or do you think that is the province of gentiles? So yes they participated, but they are as much to blame as the gentiles.

There is no single group that bears the blame alone. If that is what you think the gospel preaches then you have not done your homework.

Hate is a bad thing my friend, it sours the heart, and shatters the soul.

To say that there is nothing in Paul to prove my point about Replacement Theology only tells me that you do not understand the allegory on freedom given by Paul in Galatians 4:21-31. It is more than clear in the thread. Perhaps, you have not read the thread. Try it now.

What we reject is to take Paul's word for granted. That Jesus was the Messiah and that he resurrected was all according to the gospel of Paul, and he made no secret of it when he confessed it to his disciple Timothy in 2 Tim. 2:8. Now, some Hellenistic guy shows up in Jerusalem preaching about Jesus as the Messiah, and son of God, give me one reason why should the Jews take his word for it.

Yes, the Jews are men but, regarding being holier than the next guy, I am not too sure what you mean. What comes to my mind is that the Psalmist said the following: "You are gods, all of you sons of the Most High; yet, like men, you shall die." (Psalm 82:6,7) Then, making reference to this text, Jesus was talking to the Jews when he said, "Is it not written in your law, 'I have said, you are gods'? Aren't those gods whom God's Word was addressed?" (John 10:34) Now, take a look at Psalm 147:19,20. It says in there whom God's Word was addressed to: "He has proclaimed His Word to Jacob; His statutes and His ordinances to Israel. He has not done thus to any other nation: His ordinances, He has not made known to them. Alleluia."

There should be no group to bear any blame at all. None is to blame for the crucifixion of Jesus. Neither Jews nor Gentiles. According to Josephus, the Romans crucified thousands of Jews and every single one of them was to blame for his own crucifixion. The blame of Jesus was to have allowed some morons from among his followers to acclaim him king of the Jews at the entrance of Jerusalem of all places: the sitting place of the Roman Governor! What was one to expect to do about a local citizen being proclaimed king of the Jews in a Roman province which was the Land of Israel at that time? So much so that Pilate made it sure the people saw the verdict that led Jesus to the cross by nailing a plaque on the top of his cross stating that he had been crucified for being claimed to be the king of the Jews. (INRI)

That's the way, my friend, to face the truth without preconceved notions.

Ben

Edited May 3, 2012 by Ben Masada

[eight bits]

Not cheap shots? Yes, I can appreciate that your opinion of your fellow Christians is indispensible to the topic.

So, please refresh my recollection. Which of the 265 Popes was Paul?

[Bella-Angelique]

Sorry Bella, but this is a non-sequitur. Nazarite was not a religion but a vow. Christianity did not come from a vow. Christianity came from Hellenism. Paul was born of well-to-do Hellenistic parents in the city of Tarsus in the Cilicia, after it had been conquered by Rome. And Paul was the one who gave rise to Christianity in the city of Antioch, about 35 years after Jesus had been gone.

Ben

You did not comprehend was was written. It evolved from those who had taken the vows.

And Paul did not invent the Christian movement. It existed before him.

You can reject all of the literature that represents the teachings of Paul, never read them, and still be a Christian.

[Jor-el]

Not cheap shots? Yes, I can appreciate that your opinion of your fellow Christians is indispensible to the topic.

So, please refresh my recollection. Which of the 265 Popes was Paul?

Not a one... but then again, neither was Peter...

[eight bits]

Not a one... but then again, neither was Peter...

Then you would agree that the scriptural originators of the Christian teaching that Jews were responsible for the murder of Jesus weren't Popes.

That works for me.

[Jor-el]

To say that there is nothing in Paul to prove my point about Replacement Theology only tells me that you do not understand the allegory on freedom given by Paul in Galatians 4:21-31. It is more than clear in the thread. Perhaps, you have not read the thread. Try it now.

I Have been reading the thread since it started. Tell me, in that allegory or metaphor if you prefer, what does Paul mean by the children of the slave woman in contrast the the spiritual children of the childless woman?

Please on your own words... take that text and describe what it means step by step... you say that I do not understand, well here is your chance.

What we reject is to take Paul's word for granted. That Jesus was the Messiah and that he resurrected was all according to the gospel of Paul, and he made no secret of it when he confessed it to his disciple Timothy in 2 Tim. 2:8. Now, some Hellenistic guy shows up in Jerusalem preaching about Jesus as the Messiah, and son of God, give me one reason why should the Jews take his word for it.

Well there you have a problem since that is not just his gospel but the entire New Testaments as well, yes even by those guys who were not called Paul.

Yes, the Jews are men but, regarding being holier than the next guy, I am not too sure what you mean. What comes to my mind is that the Psalmist said the following: "You are gods, all of you sons of the Most High; yet, like men, you shall die." (Psalm 82:6,7) Then, making reference to this text, Jesus was talking to the Jews when he said, "Is it not written in your law, 'I have said, you are gods'? Aren't those gods whom God's Word was addressed?" (John 10:34) Now, take a look at Psalm 147:19,20. It says in there whom God's Word was addressed to: "He has proclaimed His Word to Jacob; His statutes and His ordinances to Israel. He has not done thus to any other nation: His ordinances, He has not made known to them. Alleluia."

I'm glad you mentioned this, let me ask, what was the purpose of Gods creation of Israel? When he set Abraham apart, when he built the nation from nothing, what was Gods purpose in doing so?

There should be no group to bear any blame at all. None is to blame for the crucifixion of Jesus. Neither Jews nor Gentiles. According to Josephus, the Romans crucified thousands of Jews and every single one of them was to blame for his own crucifixion. The blame of Jesus was to have allowed some morons from among his followers to acclaim him king of the Jews at the entrance of Jerusalem of all places: the sitting place of the Roman Governor! What was one to expect to do about a local citizen being proclaimed king of the Jews in a Roman province which was the Land of Israel at that time? So much so that Pilate made it sure the people saw the verdict that led Jesus to the cross by nailing a plaque on the top of his cross stating that he had been crucified for being claimed to be the king of the Jews. (INRI)

That's the way, my friend, to face the truth without preconceved notions.

Ben

Ah yes the old failed revolutionary view... no thanks, it doesn't fit what we are told in the New Testament, not just the Pauline Letters.

[Jor-el]

Then you would agree that the scriptural originators of the Christian teaching that Jews were responsible for the murder of Jesus weren't Popes.

That works for me.

No I wouldn't agree, since no such teaching existed back then.

[Ben Masada]

The very earliest surviving piece of Christian literature is Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians. Its author is a Jew. At 2: 14-15. Paul writes

The author of that speech in Acts 2 attributed to Peter was not a Jew. He committed the blunder to address the Jews as a Gentile. He was Luke, who is the author of the book of Acts.

]For you, brothers, have become imitators of the churches of God that are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you suffer the same things from your compatriots as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets and persecuted us; they do not please God, and are opposed to everyone [/b]

Great! Now, no one can say that Christians do not accuse the Jews with having killed Jesus, as it started with the first Christian, Paul. Thank you.

Of course, until not long before, Paul himself had been among the Jews persecuting "us." Jews appear not to be the only persecutors of "us." Not all Jews are doing the persecution, since the Judean victims are also Jewish. However, those Jews who persecute the church in Judea also killed Jesus, according to Paul, in black letters.

Paul, never in his life persecuted a single christian. Read Acts 9:1,2. When he got the letters to arrest the disciples of the Apostles, he went to the Jewish synagogues of Damascus. Christians were not found in the synagogues of the Jews.

This man, delivered up by the set plan and foreknowledge of God, you killed, using lawless men to crucify him (verse 23) ... Therefore let the whole house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified. (verse 36)

Who was this who made of Jesus both Lord and Messiah, Paul? Take a look at 2 Timothy 2:8. Paul himself confessed to his disciple Timothy that Jesus was the Messiah and that he resurrected was all according to his gospel. It only means that there was another gospel at the time in whose agenda Jesus was not pictured as being the Lord and Messiah. That must have been "the other gospel" Paul would pejoratively referred to when he saw many of Galatians deserting him and going back to the gospel of the Apostles, the Nazarenes. (Gal. 1:6-9) And that was a gospel that he was ready to curse it even if an angel had brought it down from heaven.

implies that the speaker holds every Jew in his audience personally responsible for crucifying Jesus. The accusation is just too plainly rhetorical and exaggerated to be taken literally.

The only ones responsible for Jesus' crucifixion were those morons from among Jesus followers who were acclaiming him king of the Jews at the entrance of Jerusalem. Hence the verdict Pilate nailed on the top of his cross. (INRI)

However, it is indisputable that the speech says that those responsible for the judicial murder of Jesus were Jewish. And, not to interrupt Jor-el while he's taking cheap shots at Roman Catholics, but this has been the teaching of the Christian church from the beginning, that the murderers of Jesus were Jewish.

Finally, I can say that "I can't agree with you more.

The earliest first-person record of a Christian official making that accusation was the letter of a Jew. It cannot be excluded, then, that another Jew made a speech like what is reported in Acts 2.

No, I am definitely persuaded that he was not a Jew. Moreover, that speech was not delivered in Jerusalem. It was written yes, but never delivered. Hence, IMHO, he was Luke. One would not dare to slander the Jews in their own house. In the Diaspora, yes, they are a different kind of Jews, but not in Israel.

Ben

Edited May 3, 2012 by Ben Masada

[Ben Masada]

Not cheap shots? Yes, I can appreciate that your opinion of your fellow Christians is indispensible to the topic.

So, please refresh my recollection. Which of the 265 Popes was Paul?

He was the first. And Peter was never one. Peter never had anything to do with Christianity, as neither had Jesus. Besides Paul who was a former Hellenistic Jew, as far as I am concerned, there was only another former Jew, in the History of the Roman Catholic Church who became a Pope. He was Gregory VII. He had been a former Jewish convert to Christianity.

Ben

Edited May 3, 2012 by Ben Masada

[Ben Masada]

You did not comprehend was was written. It evolved from those who had taken the vows.

And Paul did not invent the Christian movement. It existed before him.

You can reject all of the literature that represents the teachings of Paul, never read them, and still be a Christian.

No, you can't. That Jesus was Christ was according to Paul's gospel. (2 Tim. 2:8) One cannot reject Paul's gospel and still be a Christian. Otherwise, we are dealing with a mountain of contradictions.

Ben

[J. K.]

Ben > How could Christianity, a Hellenistic religion have evolved from a strict monotheistic way of life as Judaism is?

J.K. > Who is the son mentioned in Isaiah 9:1-7, who is called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace”?

Ben > About Isaiah 9:1-7, that was a prophecy about the Gentiles in the District of the Gentiles in Galilee, who would welcome the Jewish People returning from exile in Babylon, after 70 years, according to Jeremiah 25:11,12.

“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever.” Isaiah 9:1-7

Who is the child to whom this prophecy refers? This Scripture appears to assign divinity to him.

Ben > BTW, whom do you attribute the gospel being spread among the Gentiles? To Jesus, it couldn't be because Jesus himself forbade the disciples to take the gospel to the Gentiles. Read Matthew 10:5,6.

J.K. > In Matthew 10, Jesus instructed his disciples what to do on one specific journey, not for the remainder of their ministries.

Ben > Regarding Matthew 10:5,6, what do you want me to do, to take your word for it or to ask for a quote to prove what you have said? I'll go for the quote. So, get busy

These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.' Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.” Matthew 10:5-8

Jesus gave the above instructions to his disciples regarding the journey on which He sent them. This was a specific journey, and there were not the last instructions He ever gave them.

“Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Matthew 28:16-20

These were the instructions for the final journey on which He sent them. “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations” would include both Jews and Gentiles.

Ben > To Paul, it could not be because Paul never decided to turn to the Gentiles. All his life was to work in the synagogues of the Jews.

J.K. > Ephesians 3:1-11 is Paul’s testimony that he was to directly minister the Gospel to the Gentiles.

Ben > Last but not least, can you show me in your NT, when did Paul decide to ministry to the Gentiles? I can't find it. Oh, BTW, I found something here about a decision he took to turn to the Gentiles. He was in the synagogue of Antioch, when the Jews gave him such a hard time that he got upset and said, "...we now turn to the Gentiles!" (Acts 13:46) He left the Jewish synagogue of Antioch and went to the synagogue of Iconium.(Acts 14:1) Something, isn't it? Who could understand Paul? The man could never be original. He had to build his church with the former Gentiles converted by the Jews.

“In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, "Ananias!" "Yes, Lord," he answered. The Lord told him, "Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight." "Lord," Ananias answered, "I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name." But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel.” Acts 9:10-15

This Scripture indicates the origin of Paul’s ministry to Gentiles.

Ben > "This Jesus whom you crucified." If this is not an accusation, and mind you, stated in the public domain to a crowd of Jews, I don't know English.

If you prefer to think of it as an accusation, very well. It is, however, still a statement of fact according to Matthew 27:17-26:

So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, "Which one do you want me to release to you: Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?" For he knew it was out of envy that they had handed Jesus over to him. While Pilate was sitting on the judge's seat, his wife sent him this message: "Don't have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him." But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed. "Which of the two do you want me to release to you?" asked the governor. "Barabbas," they answered. "What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?" Pilate asked. They all answered, "Crucify him!" "Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!" When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!" All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!" Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

My main concern here is that you are giving credence to some Scriptures but denying others. If you cannot believe that the entire Bible is one credible document, then it’s easy to formulate any opinion. I could ignore all of the Scriptures which refer to God’s voice or hands, and focus on Psalm 36:7 - “How priceless is your unfailing love! Both high and low among men find refuge in the shadow of your wings.” God must be a bird.

[buckskin scout]

Isaiah was a Judahite prophet with the mission to prophesy to Israel in the North. Hence why he said, "We had all gone astray like sheep." And how about the expression, "But the Lord laid upon him the guilt of us all?" Due to God's promise that, on behalf of David, He would confirm Judah to remain as a lamp forever in Jerusalem, according to I Kings 11:36. The judgment that Judah had been doomed fell upon Israel instead, according to Isaiah 9:7. The doom was that Judah had to be Divinely rejected for having rejected God's Covenant. But Israel was rejected instead, while Judah was confirmed, according to Psalm 78:67-69.Therefore, the guilt of us all (meaning those of Judah) was laid upon him (Israel) so that Judah would remain as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:35-39)

Please, check the quotations for a better understanding of this interpretation. It is kind of hard to understand if you don't.

Ben

No, the lamp of Israel regards the line of David from which the Messiah springs forth from that that bloodline will never be extinguished until the birth of Christ. This is regarding the covenant God made with David.

God promised the Messiah would be from the tribe of Judah? In fact, when was the last time the Israel were under a monarchy or ruled by a king from the tribe of Judah? Remember, God promised that the scepter would never depart from the tribe of Judah? God preserved the line of David and set Jesus upon the throne of an eternal kingdom. See verses Genesis 49:8-10, Micah 5:2, 2 Samuel 7:12-16, 2 Samuel 23:5, Psalm 89:3-4, 29-37, Jeremiah 33:23-26

See verses 1 Kings 15:4-5, 2 Samuel 21:17, 1 Chronicles 5:1-2, 2 Chronicles 21:7, Psalm 132:17 for more about the lamp of Israel and God's covenant with David.

Edited May 3, 2012 by dside

[Ben Masada]

I Have been reading the thread since it started. Tell me, in that allegory or metaphor if you prefer, what does Paul mean by the children of the slave woman in contrast the the spiritual children of the childless woman?

Please on your own words... take that text and describe what it means step by step... you say that I do not understand, well here is your chance.

Galatians 4:21-31 - Paul's question in verse 21 is due to the fact that some disciples from Jerusalem had been sent to Galatia to try salvage the synagogue that had been overturned into a Christian church by Paul. Some of the members were deserting Paul and returning to the gospel of the Law.

In verses 22 and 23, he talks about the two sons of Abraham: Ishmael by Hagar, the slave woman and Isaac by Sara, the freeborn wife. Ishmael, born by the flesh, and Isaac born according to the promise.

In verse 24, he says that's an allegory. That the two women stand for two covenants: One from Mount Sinai, which is the covenant with the Jews, who are children brought forth to slavery. And that this covenant is represented by Hagar.

In verse 25, he says that Jerusalem has been under the slavery of the Law by being the seat of the Jews.

In verse 26 he compares the Jerusalem on high to Sara, who is the Christian's mother.

In verse 27 he brings to the attention of the Galatians that Christianity must grow because "many are the children of the wife deserted".

In verse 28, he compares his disciples to Isaac, the son of the promise.

In verse 29 he accuses the Jews with being the ones who persecute the Christians which are the ones born of the spirit.

In verse 30, he urges with his disciples to get rid of the Law and the Jewish covenant by casting out the slave girl, and her son Ishmael all together, by displacing not only the Sinai Covenant but also the Jewish Theology all together. Why? Because the Jews cannot be heir on equal terms with Christians.

And finally, in verse 31 he concludes by reminding his disciples that they are not like the Jews, who are the children of the slave girl Hagar but of Sara, the bornfree.

As far as I am concerned, Paul was losing his mind. Because even literally, he was making a fool of himself. We all know that the Jews come from Isaac and not from Ishmael. But he had to fabricate that idea as if he was talking to Gentiles who had never heard about the story of Abraham. He had some success anyway, as Christianity did develop as a result of this gospel of his. Perhaps those recently converted Jews from among the Gentiles did not indeed know much about the story of Abraham.

Ben