Replacement Theology

[Vatic]

Vatic, please, listen to this one. It is found in Matthew 10:1. It's about the gospel that Jesus forbade his disciples to take to the Gentiles: "Then Jesus summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority to expell unclean spirits and to cure sickness and disease of every kind." And then, "Jesus sent these men on a mission after giving them the following instruction: 'Do not visit pagan territory and do not enter a Samaritan town." In other words, do not take this gospel to the Gentiles. Are you trying to tell me that the mission to expell unclean spirits and to cure sickness and disease of every kind was not something to waste on the Gentiles but only for the Jews? I am sorry my friend, but you guys are in big trouble to escape from this spider web you have got yourself stuck at. That's simply embarrassing!

Ben

Unless you realize there is a distinction between what was preached to Israel for the redemption of the nation, and what is preached to the world in regards to redemption through Jesus Christ, you will continue to have a warrantless indignation over a non-existent prejudice. One of my main gripes about analytical thinkers is their inhernet failing to follow a narrative in context. They can mince details but they fail to follow the plot line.

[Vatic]

'Ben Masada': Right, but that does not answer my question. I asked when did Paul ever go to the Gentiles? Since the beginning of his ministry in the synagogues of Jews of Damascus and until the end in Rome, he never left the Jews in peace.

Vatic: Left them in peace? Now isn't that a psychologically revealing turn of phrase? Ben, what would you really expect from a new convert? Especially a man who is in Paul's position? The man had just had a mind bending wrecking ball vision hit him. It turned everything he though on its head. His world was ruined and he was starting again from scratch. DO YOU really think the man wouldn't seek some kind of reconciliation of his world view among those most familiar to him: His Jewish brothers? Do you think Paul is some kind of machine or something? He was just a human being who went through a traumatic psychological upheaval when he encountered Jesus.

Why would you say, "he never left the Jews in peace"? What kind of attitude is that? Do you think it is about boundaries and turf or something? Paul had just as much right to be with his own people as you or I. Get over it. Just because Paul wasn't some kind of unfeeling machine who didn't instantly start running a "gentile only" program, doesn't mean his life experiences were devoid of contact with gentiles. Good grief.

Ben: Please read Acts 9:1,2 in damascus and Acts 28:17 in Rome. BTW, what kind of apostle was he? The apostles were 12. They could neither be 11 nor 13. When Judas got lost, the 11 elected Matthias to replace him, so that the number could be 12 again. Was Paul the 13th?

Vatic: What's in a number? What if Paul was the 99th Apostle? Big deal..

Ben: Moreover, who chose Paul for an apostle, Jesus? That's what Paul used to claim. But how could Jesus have prevented the other apostles from knowing of the 13th? When Paul tried to join the others he was rejected on his history of being a persecutor of the disciples. (Acts 9:26) Tha't really frustrating. IMHO, the real Apostles never wanted anything to do with the religion Paul was raising.

Vatic: This is a classic case of institutional thinking running head on into the rogue individualist. The prophets were always chosen directly by God, and the Establishment Priest always hated those crazy lunatic loose cannon troublemaking prophets. Didn't they? So what if the Apostles weren't comfortable with Paul? Paul just happened to be about a hundred times more educated than any of them. Maybe they felt threatened or intimidated like simple minded establishment types sometimes do around a great mind.

Paul couldn't help it that he met Jesus the way he did. He encountered Jesus the exact same way that Prophets encounter the Glory of the Lord; which is the exact same thing by the way. If the Apostle had a problem with that, it was their problem to get over. I feel the same way about it right now. Just get over it. Paul is Paul and he had his life and experiences and there is nothing we can do about it. You couldn't possibly be more frustrated about any of Paul's conflicts than Paul himself would be. If Jesus gave Paul a call, then it shouldn't matter to you or me if Paul's Apostle number is '007' and his ministry was to Octopi. Our personal needs to make things "official" is irrelevant to the reality of spiritual experiences such as Paul had. Raising questions of officiality is not only disconnected from the reality of spiritual events and callings, it is bait for contention among fools who buy into the premis of "officiality".

[Vatic]

This all would be really interesting IF the New Testament was actually true, but since it's total poppycock; you all just kinda sound dumb. It's like reading a transcript of a bunch of Star Wars geeks arguing about the underlying messages and disputed etymological inconsistencies in the Star Wars Saga

Vatic: Yeah? And how exactly would you know? Tell me where your great insight came from! By all means..explain your omnipotent overview to us so that we can just drop all this silly discussion.. Just convince me how wise you're proclamation is so that I may follow your example..!

[J. K.]

According to whom were those instructions of Jesus supposed to be only for one specific journey, to you? Show me a quotation for that matter and not what a Hellenistic guy said tens of years later as Luke did in Acts 1:8.

Ben

The disciples are mentioned further in the gospels as being with Jesus on numerous occasions following their trip. The trip wasn't the last thing He instructed them to do. And then . . .

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen. (Matthew 28:18-20)

"All the nations" seems to be pretty comprehensive.

Edited May 11, 2012 by J. K.

[Jor-el]

Okay, so we are called to agree to disagree. We do not understand each other.

Ben

Good, at least we arrived at a common conclusion.

[Ben Masada]

Unless you realize there is a distinction between what was preached to Israel for the redemption of the nation, and what is preached to the world in regards to redemption through Jesus Christ, you will continue to have a warrantless indignation over a non-existent prejudice. One of my main gripes about analytical thinkers is their inhernet failing to follow a narrative in context. They can mince details but they fail to follow the plot line.

Hey Vatic, believe me, my friend, you won't like to know what was Jesus' plot line. If you read a little further ahead under Mat. 15:26, Jesus gives the reason for his prohibition not to take the gospel to the Gentiles, because, as he said, "It is not right to take of the food of the sons and daughters and through it unto the dogs." I know, that's terrible; but hey, that's what the man said. Now, you figure what was going on, not in the mind of Jesus, but in the mind of the Hellenistic guy who wrote the gospel of Matthew.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

This all would be really interesting IF the New Testament was actually true, but since it's total poppycock; you all just kinda sound dumb. It's like reading a transcript of a bunch of Star Wars geeks arguing about the underlying messages and disputed etymological inconsistencies in the Star Wars Saga

Listen Brizink, I do not disagree with you. But look at what Christianity has turned out to become. The most poweverful religion on the face of the earth. And when it could exercise its enormous power, we lost millions of our people for resisting to accept its demands. That's something we cannot underestimate but rather arming ourselves with scholarship to fight the threat.

Ben

Edited May 15, 2012 by Ben Masada

[Ben Masada]

'Ben Masada': Right, but that does not answer my question. I asked when did Paul ever go to the Gentiles? Since the beginning of his ministry in the synagogues of Jews of Damascus and until the end in Rome, he never left the Jews in peace.

Vatic: Left them in peace? Now isn't that a psychologically revealing turn of phrase? Ben, what would you really expect from a new convert? Especially a man who is in Paul's position? The man had just had a mind bending wrecking ball vision hit him. It turned everything he though on its head. His world was ruined and he was starting again from scratch. DO YOU really think the man wouldn't seek some kind of reconciliation of his world view among those most familiar to him: His Jewish brothers? Do you think Paul is some kind of machine or something? He was just a human being who went through a traumatic psychological upheaval when he encountered Jesus.

Why would you say, "he never left the Jews in peace"? What kind of attitude is that? Do you think it is about boundaries and turf or something? Paul had just as much right to be with his own people as you or I. Get over it. Just because Paul wasn't some kind of unfeeling machine who didn't instantly start running a "gentile only" program, doesn't mean his life experiences were devoid of contact with gentiles. Good grief.

Ben: Please read Acts 9:1,2 in damascus and Acts 28:17 in Rome. BTW, what kind of apostle was he? The apostles were 12. They could neither be 11 nor 13. When Judas got lost, the 11 elected Matthias to replace him, so that the number could be 12 again. Was Paul the 13th?

Vatic: What's in a number? What if Paul was the 99th Apostle? Big deal..

Ben: Moreover, who chose Paul for an apostle, Jesus? That's what Paul used to claim. But how could Jesus have prevented the other apostles from knowing of the 13th? When Paul tried to join the others he was rejected on his history of being a persecutor of the disciples. (Acts 9:26) Tha't really frustrating. IMHO, the real Apostles never wanted anything to do with the religion Paul was raising.

Vatic: This is a classic case of institutional thinking running head on into the rogue individualist. The prophets were always chosen directly by God, and the Establishment Priest always hated those crazy lunatic loose cannon troublemaking prophets. Didn't they? So what if the Apostles weren't comfortable with Paul? Paul just happened to be about a hundred times more educated than any of them. Maybe they felt threatened or intimidated like simple minded establishment types sometimes do around a great mind.

Paul couldn't help it that he met Jesus the way he did. He encountered Jesus the exact same way that Prophets encounter the Glory of the Lord; which is the exact same thing by the way. If the Apostle had a problem with that, it was their problem to get over. I feel the same way about it right now. Just get over it. Paul is Paul and he had his life and experiences and there is nothing we can do about it. You couldn't possibly be more frustrated about any of Paul's conflicts than Paul himself would be. If Jesus gave Paul a call, then it shouldn't matter to you or me if Paul's Apostle number is '007' and his ministry was to Octopi. Our personal needs to make things "official" is irrelevant to the reality of spiritual experiences such as Paul had. Raising questions of officiality is not only disconnected from the reality of spiritual events and callings, it is bait for contention among fools who buy into the premis of "officiality".

According to Job 10:21, once dead and gone to the shadow of death, one is never to return. therefore, Paul did not meet Jesus in the Road to Damascus. He simply had an attack of epilepsy, aka "fallen disease". According to Acts 9:3,4, a light from the sky suddenly flashed upon him; he fell from his horse to the ground as he heard a voice. These are exactly the symptoms of epilepsy; strange flashing of light, hearing of voices and falling disorderly. Is it to wonder that the Apostles rejected his application to join the group? (Acts 9:26) Besides, his gospel had nothing to do with the gospel of the Apostles. (Gal. 1:17) So much so that, when he was given the benefit of the doubt on a trial basis, he caused such a havoc in Jerusalem that the Jews were after him to arrest him and to bring him to trial, when James spirited him out of Israel back to Tarsus where he belonged. (Acts 9:30)

Ben

Edited May 15, 2012 by Ben Masada

[Ben Masada]

The disciples are mentioned further in the gospels as being with Jesus on numerous occasions following their trip. The trip wasn't the last thing He instructed them to do. And then . . .

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen. (Matthew 28:18-20)

"All the nations" seems to be pretty comprehensive.

For two reasons, Matthew 28:19,20 is a contradiction to Jesus' words: First, because of his prohibition to take the gospel to the Gentiles; and second, Jesus was a Jewish man who believed that God is absolutely One, according to Mark 12:29. So, he would never instruct his disciples to baptize any one in the name of the Trinity, And, believe it or not, placing himself as the second person of the Trinity. An absolutely un-Jewish doctrine, possible only in Greek Mythology.

Ben

[Bella-Angelique]

All faiths based upon racial or ethnic superiority are doomed to eventually die out and become extinct. There is no way to stop that process from taking place.

They are completely dysfunctional for the future. Those that still exist will eventually all be replaced.

[Ben Masada]

All faiths based upon racial or ethnic superiority are doomed to eventually die out and become extinct. There is no way to stop that process from taking place.

They are completely dysfunctional for the future. Those that still exist will eventually all be replaced.

You have just stated the truth, because, according to Jeremiah 46:28, of the other nations God will eventually make an end of them, but of Israel, He will only chastise as we deserve. Besides, have you read the "Essay about the Jews" by Mark Twain? He talks about the "immortality" of the Jew. There is something in the nature of the Jew that, replacement will never be effected, as long as the natural laws function properly. (Jer. 31:35-37)

Ben

[buckskin scout]

Ben Masada,

How do you interpret Isaiah 52:13-15 and Isaiah 53:4-5, especially the passage in verse 4 "And our diseases He carried;"?

[Vatic]

There is no doubt that replacement theology is a fallacy. But we have digressed into so many periphery topics that the conclusion the replacement theology is incorrect seems to be arrived at erroneously.

[Vatic]

Ben Masada:

According to Job 10:21, once dead and gone to the shadow of death, one is never to return. therefore, Paul did not meet Jesus in the Road to Damascus.

Vatic: Let's not start using sophistry. Job was talking only about himself dying. He was asking God to turn away His anger from him so that he could have some joy before he died. Obviously the story narrative doesn't have Job dying. It is not intended to state life after death is not possible. it is just a natural view of death's seeming permenance to Job who was anticipating His own departure.

Jesus on the other hand was teaching that eternal life is possible and proved it. Therefore Paul did meet Jesus on the road to Damascus since Jesus was intent on demonstrating his existence to Paul.

Ben Masada: He simply had an attack of epilepsy, aka "fallen disease". According to Acts 9:3,4, a light from the sky suddenly flashed upon him; he fell from his horse to the ground as he heard a voice. These are exactly the symptoms of epilepsy; strange flashing of light, hearing of voices and falling disorderly.

Vatic: This is typical thinking of the analytical rationalist, Nevermind that it is a an invention created in the attempt to explain away an explicite testimony that directly states what the event consisted of: Jesus appearing to Paul. Your problem is that you refuse to believe the direct statement and prefer inventions as an alternative. I think this is just the typical argumentative nature of rationalist personalities.

Ben Masada: Is it to wonder that the Apostles rejected his application to join the group (Acts 9:26)

Vatic: Do you really thik I'm buying into your "Epilepsy" fabrication? Nor do you have the account straight. The Apostles accepted Paul on the basis of Barnabas vouching for him. Here is what the account actually states:

Acts: 9: 26-30

²⁶ When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. ²⁷ But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus. ²⁸ So Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. ²⁹ He talked and debated with the Hellenistic Jews,^[a] but they tried to kill him. ³⁰ When the believers learned of this, they took him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus.

Obviously after the jitters, Paul became one of the gang.

Ben Masada: Besides, his gospel had nothing to do with the gospel of the Apostles. (Gal. 1:17)

Vatic: Let's just take a look at that passage:

"But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased ¹⁶ to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. ¹⁷ I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus. "

Well Ben, it doesn't say that what Paul was shown or preached was at variance with the other Apostles. You're reading into the text what is not there. It also BTW, affirms that Paul went to Arabia on a mission to preach Jesus among the gentiles there, which you also questioned if Paul preached to gentiles, suggesting he only really tormented Jews with his views. This directly refutes you in explicite terms. Paul preached Jesus to gentiles.

Ben Masada: So much so that, when he was given the benefit of the doubt on a trial basis, he caused such a havoc in Jerusalem that the Jews were after him to arrest him and to bring him to trial, when James spirited him out of Israel back to Tarsus where he belonged. (Acts 9:30)

Vatic: The above text doesn't say anything about a "trial period". You invented that. It doesn't say Pauls created "havoc" in Jerusalem. it says he moved about preaching freely in Jerusalem. It doesn't say Jews were after him to arrest him or put him on trial. It says that when he debated Hellenistic Jews (you know the Jews who adopted unjewish culture) that THEY tried to "kill" him. It doesn't imply Paul belonged in Tarsus, only that is where they sent him to escape the murderous Hellenist.

YOU read so much into the text that isn't there, it is nothing less than SLOPPY. Reading comprehension is not the strong suit of analytical rationalist in my experience. Following the narrative is difficult for those who only look at parts and peices of things.

[J. K.]

For two reasons, Matthew 28:19,20 is a contradiction to Jesus' words: First, because of his prohibition to take the gospel to the Gentiles; and second, Jesus was a Jewish man who believed that God is absolutely One, according to Mark 12:29. So, he would never instruct his disciples to baptize any one in the name of the Trinity, And, believe it or not, placing himself as the second person of the Trinity. An absolutely un-Jewish doctrine, possible only in Greek Mythology.

Ben

So now we have established that you reject portions of the Gospels in addition to most of the Epistles. In another discussion, you have indicated that portions of the Old Testament writings (portions of the Law) are non-applicable for humanity today. In essence, you have "replaced the theology" of the collection of writings called the Holy Bible.

What are your qualifications for making your interpretations?

[Jor-el]

So now we have established that you reject portions of the Gospels in addition to most of the Epistles. In another discussion, you have indicated that portions of the Old Testament writings (portions of the Law) are non-applicable for humanity today. In essence, you have "replaced the theology" of the collection of writings called the Holy Bible.

What are your qualifications for making your interpretations?

He only accepts those scriptures that are useful to him for his argument, everything else is not accepted by him. He insists on the same arguments even after they have been refuted...

[Bella-Angelique]

In 70 ad the temple at Jerusalem fell.

At that point in time many theological beliefs were replaced with new ones.

No belief system that was tied to the temple remained intact as it was.

That is historical fact.

And that is a good thing and why it was allowed to fall.

Because it was horribly flawed and made dysfunctional by clerics using it as their personal tribal thrones.

Where race, sex, class, and ethnicity were worshipped and valued above ethics, justice, and mercy which is the true and real worship of God.

God's chosen people are not chosen to rule over others as pagan like gods, a superior people ruling over a planet of slaves, but chosen to serve all people as guides and protectors.

As they would have God do for them. A very good replacement for what clerics had constructed for exploitation and abuse. The best replacement, the original version that was lost.

There are no inherited sins.

There are no inherited blessings.

There never were.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Bella-Angelique

[Ben Masada]

Ben Masada,

How do you interpret Isaiah 52:13-15 and Isaiah 53:4-5, especially the passage in verse 4 "And our diseases He carried;"?

Isaiah 52:13-15 - Judah was about to be attacked by Damascus and Samaria in a coalition war that spelled disaster. Losing confidence in the Lord, Judah rejected God's Covenant and established one with Tiglat-pileser, king of Assyria. As a result of that covenant, Judah had to accept the Baal religion of Assyria, as to even sacrifice their firstborn sons. So, did Ahaz, who was the king at the time. (2 Kings 16:1-13) As a result of such a development, the Lord doomed Judah to extinction.

That's how low Judah had gone down. But because of God's promise to David in I Kings 11:36, that his Tribe would remain forever as a lamp in Jerusalem, "My servant, Judah, shall prosper and be greatly exalted." This happened when Israel was used as the scapegoat to redeem Judah, which is explained with the Divine rejection of Israel and confirmation of Judah, according to Psalm 78:67-69. So, the judgment of doom which was upon Judah fell upon Israel. (Isa. 9:7,8) As for verse 4, which you, especially point to, "Many were amazed at Judah, whose marred appearance was beyond that of mortals." That's about the spiritual condition of Judah before it was greatly exalted by its hard-to-understand change of fate. Hence "who would believe what we have heard?" Only to Isaiah had the design of the Lord been revealed. (Isaiah 53:1)

Isaiah 53:4,5 - Yet, it was Judah's doom that Israel bore; Judah's suffering that Israel endured, by being transferred from the Land of Israel to Assyria in Judah's place. Judah was the one that had been Divinely doomed to that and not Israel, who was instead smitten by God to redeem Judah. Then, in verse 5, he, Israel, was pierced for Judah's offenses and crushed for Judah's sins. Judah had been made whole by the chastisement upon Israel. By the stripes that Israel suffered in Judah's instead, Judah had been healed and confirmed back as God's chosen People. (Psalm 78:67-69) Then, Israel had been cut off from the land of the living, which is the Land of Israel, according to Isaiah 53:8,9 and graves had been assigned to her among the Gentiles for good.

Ben

Edited May 19, 2012 by Ben Masada

[Ben Masada]

There is no doubt that replacement theology is a fallacy. But we have digressed into so many periphery topics that the conclusion the replacement theology is incorrect seems to be arrived at erroneously.

Vatic, I am sorry to say that you still do not understand what Replacement Theology is about, in spite of so detailed an explanation is given in the thread. Do you want me to go through it word by word in Galatian 4:21-31? I am asking beforehand, because you could take it as an insult to your intelligence.

Ben

Edited May 19, 2012 by Ben Masada

[Ben Masada]

Ben Masada:

Vatic: Let's not start using sophistry. Job was talking only about himself dying. He was asking God to turn away His anger from him so that he could have some joy before he died. Obviously the story narrative doesn't have Job dying. It is not intended to state life after death is not possible. it is just a natural view of death's seeming permenance to Job who was anticipating His own departure.

Job spoke about the grave as a land of darkness wherefrom one will never return. The problem is that your faith won't allow you to reason.

Jesus on the other hand was teaching that eternal life is possible and proved it. Therefore Paul did meet Jesus on the road to Damascus since Jesus was intent on demonstrating his existence to Paul.

Jesus would not teach against the Torah, which teaches that man was banished from the Garden of Eden to prevent him from eating of the tree of life and live forever. That's in Genesis 3:22. The Torah can't be more clear than that. But where faith begins, reason ends; and people perish for lack of knowledge. (Hosea 4:6)

Vatic: This is typical thinking of the analytical rationalist, Nevermind that it is a an invention created in the attempt to explain away an explicite testimony that directly states what the event consisted of: Jesus appearing to Paul. Your problem is that you refuse to believe the direct statement and prefer inventions as an alternative. I think this is just the typical argumentative nature of rationalist personalities.

As I see, you are too fast to condemn rationality. That's typical of faith. It only confirms that faith can't walk together with Reason. Besides, who said that Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus? Paul, right? But of course! His word was not worthy believing. He used to lie at his heart's content.

Vatic: Do you really thik I'm buying into your "Epilepsy" fabrication? Nor do you have the account straight. The Apostles accepted Paul on the basis of Barnabas vouching for him. Here is what the account actually states:

Can't you see that Paul had been rejected by the apostles to join the Sect? If Paul was accepted on the basis of Barnabas vouching for him, it means that he needed Barnabas to intercede for him against the rejection of the apostles.

Acts: 9: 26-30 ²⁶ When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. ²⁷ But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus. ²⁸ So Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. ²⁹ He talked and debated with the Hellenistic Jews,^[a] but they tried to kill him. ³⁰ When the believers learned of this, they took him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus.

I don't even have to look for further quotations. You have given me, in a silver platter, the confirmation to my views that Paul was rejected, then accepted on a trial basis, started preaching his peculiar hellenistic gospel in Jerusalem, that Jesus was the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected, fed the local Jews up with his nonsense, ran the risk to be killed, and James took him down to Caesarea, and from there, sent him off to Tarsus, where he belonged. Thank you for the help.

Obviously after the jitters, Paul became one of the gang.

Paul never became part of the Sect of the Nazarenes. He rather fell into the habit to invade the Nazarene synagogues and overturn them into Christian churches.

"But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased ¹⁶ to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. ¹⁷ I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus. "

When did Paul decide to go to preach his gospel to the Gentiles, can you show me? And, as you confirm above, his gospel was peculiar his, that he never even consulted with the apostles. Do you need anything further to persuade yourself that his gospel had nothing to do with the gospel of the apostles of Jesus? I didn't thing so.

Well Ben, it doesn't say that what Paul was shown or preached was at variance with the other Apostles. You're reading into the text what is not there.

Are you sure it doesn't? I can't believe you! What gospel was he talking about in Galatians 1:6-9, which he would curse even if it had been brough down by an angel from heaven? That was "the other gospel" he used to refer to, pejoratively.

It also BTW, affirms that Paul went to Arabia on a mission to preach Jesus among the gentiles there, which you also questioned if Paul preached to gentiles, suggesting he only really tormented Jews with his views. This directly refutes you in explicite terms. Paul preached Jesus to gentiles.

Where, in the synagogues of the Jews? Amazing! How could he find Gentiles in the synagogues of the Jews? Read Acts 9:1,2.

Vatic: The above text doesn't say anything about a "trial period". You invented that. It doesn't say Pauls created "havoc" in Jerusalem. it says he moved about preaching freely in Jerusalem. It doesn't say Jews were after him to arrest him or put him on trial. It says that when he debated Hellenistic Jews (you know the Jews who adopted unjewish culture) that THEY tried to "kill" him. It doesn't imply Paul belonged in Tarsus, only that is where they sent him to escape the murderous Hellenist.

Yes, it was a trial period under the tutoring of Barnabas. If he had not created a havoc, he would not have been chased out of Israel and back to Tarsus. He was preaching freely because Barnabas had relaxed his supervision over him. After 14 years in Tarsus, he returned to Jerusalem and was arrested and put on trial. This time, he had no chance to escape. Read Acts 22:30.

Ben

Edited May 19, 2012 by Ben Masada

[Vatic]

Vatic: There is no doubt that replacement theology is a fallacy. But we have digressed into so many periphery topics that the conclusion the replacement theology is incorrect seems to be arrived at erroneously.

Ben Masada: Vatic, I am sorry to say that you still do not understand what Replacement Theology is about, in spite of so detailed an explanation is given in the thread. Do you want me to go through it word by word in Galatian 4:21-31? I am asking beforehand, because you could take it as an insult to your intelligence.

Ben

Vatic: Yes I do. And I know that those who advocate the concept of replacement theology are wrong. However I wasn't impressed with your reasoning to that conclusion. To me you are using it as the "Occam's Razor" where it is actually not there. For instance to use the accepted practice of allegorical exegesis to see the prophetic message in events or prophecies, and take it to mean it is a symbol of the reality of Jesus, I suspect you would simply dismiss it as part of the "replacement theology" conspiracy, which wouldn't necessarily be the case at all.

[Ben Masada]

So now we have established that you reject portions of the Gospels in addition to most of the Epistles. In another discussion, you have indicated that portions of the Old Testament writings (portions of the Law) are non-applicable for humanity today. In essence, you have "replaced the theology" of the collection of writings called the Holy Bible.

What are your qualifications for making your interpretations?

I find only 20% of the NT worthy learning something from. I mean, that I can believe. Of the Tanach, I accept every thing, albeit not according to literal interpretation. Otherwise, I would be implying contradictions in the Hebrew Scriptures. My qualifications? Reason.

Ben

Edited May 19, 2012 by Ben Masada

[Ben Masada]

In 70 ad the temple at Jerusalem fell.

At that point in time many theological beliefs were replaced with new ones.

No belief system that was tied to the temple remained intact as it was.

That is historical fact.

And that is a good thing and why it was allowed to fall.

Because it was horribly flawed and made dysfunctional by clerics using it as their personal tribal thrones.

Where race, sex, class, and ethnicity were worshipped and valued above ethics, justice, and mercy which is the true and real worship of God.

God's chosen people are not chosen to rule over others as pagan like gods, a superior people ruling over a planet of slaves, but chosen to serve all people as guides and protectors.

As they would have God do for them. A very good replacement for what clerics had constructed for exploitation and abuse. The best replacement, the original version that was lost.

There are no inherited sins.

There are no inherited blessings.

There never were.

Does it means, you agree with the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology?

Ben

[Ben Masada]

Vatic: There is no doubt that replacement theology is a fallacy. But we have digressed into so many periphery topics that the conclusion the replacement theology is incorrect seems to be arrived at erroneously.

Ben Masada: Vatic, I am sorry to say that you still do not understand what Replacement Theology is about, in spite of so detailed an explanation is given in the thread. Do you want me to go through it word by word in Galatian 4:21-31? I am asking beforehand, because you could take it as an insult to your intelligence.

Ben

Vatic: Yes I do. And I know that those who advocate the concept of replacement theology are wrong. However I wasn't impressed with your reasoning to that conclusion. To me you are using it as the "Occam's Razor" where it is actually not there. For instance to use the accepted practice of allegorical exegesis to see the prophetic message in events or prophecies, and take it to mean it is a symbol of the reality of Jesus, I suspect you would simply dismiss it as part of the "replacement theology" conspiracy, which wouldn't necessarily be the case at all.

Be my guest: Galatians 4:21-31. - The church of the Galatians had been a Nazarene synagogue that Paul had overturned into a Christian church. Then, James, the head of the Sect in Jerusalem had sent some of their people to try to salvage their synagogue. In fact, some of the members were returning to the gospel of the Nazarenes when Paul became aware of the fact and wrote that epistle.

21 - "You who want to be subject to the Law, tell me: Do you know what the Law has to say?" (Paul here start to slander the Law)

22 - "There it is written that Abraham had two sons, (Ishmael and Isaac) one by the slave girl, (that's Hagar) and the other by his freeborn wife." (That's Sarah)

23 - "The son of the slave girl (that's Ishmael) had been begotten in the curse of nature, (that's according to the flesh) but the son of the free woman (Sarah) was the fruit of the promise."

24 - "All this is an allegory: The two women stand for the two covenants. (the one with Israel and the one with Christians) One is from Mount Sinai, and brough forth children to slavery: this is Hagar." (Here, Paul is comaparing the Jewish Covenant with Hagar)

25 - "The mount Sinai (Hagar) is in Arabia and corresponds to the Jerusalem of our time, which is likewise in slavery with her children." (The Jews)

26 - "But the Jerusalem on high is freeborn, (Sara) and it is she who is our (Christians') mother."

27 - "That's why Scriptures says: 'Rejoice, you barren one who bears no children; break into song, you stranger to the pains of childbirth!" (He's talking about Sarah)

28 - "You, my brothers, (Christians) are children of the promise, as Isaac was." (Paul has replaced here the Jews with Christians as coming from Isaac)

29 - "But just as in those days the son born in nature's curse (Ishmael as the Jews) persecuted the ones whose birth was in the realm of spirit, so do we find it now." (Paul lying that Jews persecuted Christians)

30 - "What does Scripture say on the point? 'Cast out the slave girl and her son together; (Get rid of the Jewish covenant and the Jews themselves together, which is the origin of Antisemism) for the slave girl's son shall never be an heir on equal terms with the son of the one born free." (That Jews can no longer be on the same level with Christian, who are from Isaac. Hitler liked this one)

31 - "Therefore, my brothers, (Christians) we are not children of a slave girl (we Christians don't belong to the Jewish covenant) but of the mother who is free. (But Sarah, the new covenant in Christ)

Now, I hope you understand now what Replacement Theology is.

Ben

Edited May 19, 2012 by Ben Masada

[J. K.]

I find only 20% of the NT worthy learning something from. I mean, that I can believe. Of the Tanach, I accept every thing, albeit not according to literal interpretation. Otherwise, I would be implying contradictions in the Hebrew Scriptures. My qualifications? Reason.

You accept 20% of the New Testament, and I accept 100% of it. Why do you consider your reason superior to my reason?