Replacement Theology....

[Georges]

Does God reject the Jews (a people who love and worship him) as a nation because of a political plot to crucify Jesus?

Were not the disciples and apostles.....practicing Jews? Did they consider themselves Christians, or Jews? Did they ever consider anything but Judaism under Messiah?

Israel is both physically and spiritually true to God. Judaism is both physically and spiritually true to God. The Gentile church ideally, should be proselytes of Judaism. The Gentile church is the branch grafted into Judaism. So many people have that concept backwards....

 

[JM]

'...not all Israel is Israel...' I think is in reference to the remnant of true beleivers that always exists. Its possible that the Israel of God can mean both the physical seed and the Spiritual seed of Abraham, allowing the context of the passage to dictate the meaning. God's people are spiritual Israel, physcial Israel always existed in a remnant and as a whole the nation Israel failed.

Ethnic Israel was called for a purpose but not salvation in every case, a quick example would be Jacob and Esau. They both were covenant children but Jacob was chosen to become Israel. When we look at passages relating to Israel, I don't believe we should replace the Church for Israel, but see the Church as the spiritual Israel or true believer/chosen/elect, etc.

This doesn't rob national Israel of anything, they were still blessed over all other nations because of the covenants and will be in the future Roman 11 (still working it all out).

I don't know, I'm rambling now, thanks for calling me on it, I need the encouragement to continue studying. Simply put: believers in the OT are always spiritual Israel and are the elect of national Israel, where as the believers in the NT are the Church or elect of all nations. Both groups of believers are one body and are the elect.

I didn't vote. :smt047

 

[GundamZero]

Well, I think we have to remember that Jesus often talked about bringing his sheep back into his fold. Now he said that he had sheep that were of a different pen when he was speaking to Israel. I we need to remember that God always placed those who obeyed him on the foreground of History. From Abraham, to Rahab, to Billy Graham.
Salvation comes from Israel genealogically so as to bring Messiah into the world through a legal lineage. But God also chose Israel to bring a message to the rest of the world. That is, that the reconciliation of Man was already in the woodworks, and that whoever would repent and follow the instructions the Lord gave to those waiting already, the Jews.
Being grafted into Davids Line makes us more Jewish than those who are Jewish by birth but have not accepted the gospel. But you also have to remember that at the Revelation, there will indeed be a great remnant of God's nation reserved for His work. Why would God use such Legal means to accomplish the Revelation of His son to all men? The answer is that by doing this, all would see that God has kept His covenant through the ages, right up to the end. Now, I'm no biblical Scholar, but this seems to be the most logical and brief explanation I could arrive at.

 

[Georges]

Well, I think we have to remember that Jesus often talked about bringing his sheep back into his fold.

What is his fold?.....I submit bringing the "lost sheep of Israel" back to worshipping the Father by obeying the commandments of his Father (not the traditions of men). A purer form of Judaism. That is back into the fold. This was not Gentile inclusive...Jesus did not go to the Gentiles....although he did appreciate Gentiles when they showed their faith in God.

Now he said that he had sheep that were of a different pen when he was speaking to Israel. I we need to remember that God always placed those who obeyed him on the foreground of History. From Abraham, to Rahab, to Billy Graham.

Please consider that Jesus worshipped the Father by his obedience to the Torah through Judaism. It was the Disciples and Apostles intent to mimic Jesus by worshipping God through Judasim with a new perspective on Judaism. Using that context, the "sheep of a different pen" are those Gentiles who come to God through Messiah by proselyting to the religion of Jesus....that would be Judaism. I agree with your statement "we need to remember that God always placed those who obeyed him on the foreground of History", in this case it is the Halacha "how one walks" in his obedience to God by observing his commandments, whether Noahide or Mosaic (whatever applies).

Salvation comes from Israel genealogically so as to bring Messiah into the world through a legal lineage. But God also chose Israel to bring a message to the rest of the world. That is, that the reconciliation of Man was already in the woodworks, and that whoever would repent and follow the instructions the Lord gave to those waiting already, the Jews.

Well said.....

Being grafted into Davids Line makes us more Jewish than those who are Jewish by birth but have not accepted the gospel.

I agree...

But you also have to remember that at the Revelation, there will indeed be a great remnant of God's nation reserved for His work.

Again, I agree.....

Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Obviously in the future, there will be Torah observant Christians.....

Why would God use such Legal means to accomplish the Revelation of His son to all men? The answer is that by doing this, all would see that God has kept His covenant through the ages, right up to the end. Now, I'm no biblical Scholar, but this seems to be the most logical and brief explanation I could arrive at.

Nice Post....

my comments in red FWIW.

 

[Georges]

Replacement Theology suggests that the Chruch is the new spiritual Israel.

Replacement Theology suggests that Christianity (modern) has replaced Judaism as the religion of God's choice for man to observe.

I submit that Christianity (early, pre-Pauline) was Judaism...or more specifically, a sect of Judaism much like the Saduccees and the Pharasee's. I submit that the early Christians were Torah observant believers in Jesus as the Messiah.

Replacement Theology suggests that since the Temple was destroyed, and the Jews scattered, that God has forsaken the Jews forever.

The Church needed to give an account explaining bible prophecy concerning the Millennial dominance of the Jews....the obvious answer being, "Christians are the new Israel". That answer worked for those who didn't think God could restore genuine Israel or the Jews to their land. But the reintroduction of the nation of Israel and the Jews to their homeland now needs to be taken into account.

Replacement Theology needs to be rethunk....

 

[GundamZero]

Ok, Ok.. Hold on.

Now, I do not go one way or the othe on this whole replacement theology. You see, I am not a fan of buzz words and rtends in the church that seem to mimic the attitude in pop culture: you know, somehting new everyday.

Now I'll start going down my post, because I think both of us got a little mixed up.

It is important to remember that in John chapter ten, the passage containing Jesus message about the flock, he is taking directly to Israel. Thusly, when he says "I have other sheep that are not of this pen... They too will hear my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd" he means, the other sheep are those among the Gentiles. Salvation comes from Zion, but it is meant for all. You see, you bring up a very good point when you talk about the purer form of Judaism (Though I hate referring to faith in a nominal context), because what is practiced today and what was practiced in Jesus time is not at all what he had intended. You see, they turned it into a culture rather than what it was supposed to be. God, when he gave Israel the Law, gave it to them to show them something: No one could be like God. There was never any salvation through the law. Before God came and lived among us, salvation still came through faith, by grace. it was the people's faith in the Lord and the acceptence of the grace afforded them by God. The Pharisees practiced the law ardently, whereas eventually, it turned into their means of salvation. But many of them, who observe the Torah more legally than anyone else, but this brought them nothing.
What is the Torah but the Law? Is a Child of God required to follow the Law? The answer is surprising. No. You see, a commandment of God to one man is not the same as His command to another. James ordered to preach the word in Jerulsalem, while Paul was sent to Rome and between. The B.C. Church was commanded to observe the law as a means to detemine God's will. The A.D. Church was given it's commission under different orders. Our church now is to to observe God's direct command to follow him at all costs, ven against your religion.
Wasn't Peter told that the unclean foods were now Clean by decree of the Lord Almighty himself. Surely this would compete with the dietary outlines provided for in the torah? But it doesn't, because Christ accomplished the law, we now follow His word directly from now on. I do not mean to attack the Torah, but the fact is that a believer is not judged this way or that by the torah in regards to sin and conduct.
The Law convicts of sin. But we have died to sin and are alive in Christ. "For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace."

Now, there is now such thing as early, pre-Pauline, Jamesine, or otherwise Christianity. Our faith is not a religion and we need to be clear of that. There is only the Church of the Messiah if you really want to put it that way, because God's people were always under Christ, whether we knew his name or not. Well, I could speak to this for hours but I really must be Going. I enjoyed your post, please feel free to comment again.

 

[New_Wineskin]

Ok, Ok.. Hold on.

Now, I do not go one way or the othe on this whole replacement theology. You see, I am not a fan of buzz words and rtends in the church that seem to mimic the attitude in pop culture: you know, somehting new everyday.

Now I'll start going down my post, because I think both of us got a little mixed up.

It is important to remember that in John chapter ten, the passage containing Jesus message about the flock, he is taking directly to Israel. Thusly, when he says "I have other sheep that are not of this pen... They too will hear my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd" he means, the other sheep are those among the Gentiles. Salvation comes from Zion, but it is meant for all. You see, you bring up a very good point when you talk about the purer form of Judaism (Though I hate referring to faith in a nominal context), because what is practiced today and what was practiced in Jesus time is not at all what he had intended. You see, they turned it into a culture rather than what it was supposed to be. God, when he gave Israel the Law, gave it to them to show them something: No one could be like God. There was never any salvation through the law. Before God came and lived among us, salvation still came through faith, by grace. it was the people's faith in the Lord and the acceptence of the grace afforded them by God. The Pharisees practiced the law ardently, whereas eventually, it turned into their means of salvation. But many of them, who observe the Torah more legally than anyone else, but this brought them nothing.
What is the Torah but the Law? Is a Child of God required to follow the Law? The answer is surprising. No. You see, a commandment of God to one man is not the same as His command to another. James ordered to preach the word in Jerulsalem, while Paul was sent to Rome and between. The B.C. Church was commanded to observe the law as a means to detemine God's will. The A.D. Church was given it's commission under different orders. Our church now is to to observe God's direct command to follow him at all costs, ven against your religion.
Wasn't Peter told that the unclean foods were now Clean by decree of the Lord Almighty himself. Surely this would compete with the dietary outlines provided for in the torah? But it doesn't, because Christ accomplished the law, we now follow His word directly from now on. I do not mean to attack the Torah, but the fact is that a believer is not judged this way or that by the torah in regards to sin and conduct.
The Law convicts of sin. But we have died to sin and are alive in Christ. "For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace."

Now, there is now such thing as early, pre-Pauline, Jamesine, or otherwise Christianity. Our faith is not a religion and we need to be clear of that. There is only the Church of the Messiah if you really want to put it that way, because God's people were always under Christ, whether we knew his name or not. Well, I could speak to this for hours but I really must be Going. I enjoyed your post, please feel free to comment again.

Great post !!

 

[Georges]

Ok, Ok.. Hold on.

:-D sorry....wasn't insinuating anything....or trying to be argumentive.

Now, I do not go one way or the othe on this whole replacement theology. You see, I am not a fan of buzz words and rtends in the church that seem to mimic the attitude in pop culture: you know, somehting new everyday.

Sorry....again....I didn't know it was a buzz word....just a description of the event.

Now I'll start going down my post, because I think both of us got a little mixed up.

Nothing new for me.... :D I'm that way perpetually.

It is important to remember that in John chapter ten, the passage containing Jesus message about the flock, he is taking directly to Israel. Thusly, when he says "I have other sheep that are not of this pen... They too will hear my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd" he means, the other sheep are those among the Gentiles.

Agreed....

Salvation comes from Zion, but it is meant for all.

I agree with that also...

You see, you bring up a very good point when you talk about the purer form of Judaism (Though I hate referring to faith in a nominal context), because what is practiced today and what was practiced in Jesus time is not at all what he had intended.

I agree with your statement 100%

You see, they turned it into a culture rather than what it was supposed to be. God, when he gave Israel the Law, gave it to them to show them something: No one could be like God.

I agree with your statement mostly only to add the Law was more importantly given to show an individual how they are to act. A set of instruction's on how to live (or attempt to live) righteously. IMHO

There was never any salvation through the law.

Agreed...but obedience to God by obeying the law is what he requires. Nobody is going to keep the law perfectly, but a righteous man will strive to be obedient to God by trying to keep his commandments. Replacement theology suggests that the Commandments given to Israel are null and voided by Christs acts on the cross.

Before God came and lived among us, salvation still came through faith, by grace.

We part company here somewhat as I don't think God (our Heavenly Father) has come and lived with us yet. That will happen in the future. I'm not a trinitarian so I can't consider Jesus as God....I do consider him as the Son of God. Can't elaborate on that anymore as the Mod's have somewhat muzzled me on that subject. I do agree with your statement on grace and faith.

it was the people's faith in the Lord and the acceptence of the grace afforded them by God. The Pharisees practiced the law ardently, whereas eventually, it turned into their means of salvation. But many of them, who observe the Torah more legally than anyone else, but this brought them nothing.

Not so.....those who followed Torah with the right intent followed it righteously....The Apostles followed Torah righteously...and they were Pharisees.

What is the Torah but the Law? Is a Child of God required to follow the Law? The answer is surprising. No.

Actually the answer is "Yes"....a careful study of Acts....I mean a real careful study of Acts will show that the Apostles, who where Pharisic Jews, kept the Torah until they died. Even Paul supposedly kept the Torah as he espoused in the last chapter of Acts.

However, I will say that James in Acts did concede that the Gentile Christians only had to follow the Noahide Laws with the understanding that they would adopt Mosaic Law....a milk to meat circumstance. Torah provides the steps to walk righteously....in obedience, not redemption.



You see, a commandment of God to one man is not the same as His command to another. James ordered to preach the word in Jerulsalem, while Paul was sent to Rome and between.

Gotta differ with you here as well....God's commandments are the same to all men.

The B.C. Church was commanded to observe the law as a means to detemine God's will.

I will agree with you here.......I think......faith and obedience.....can one prove themselves faithful by following the rules?

The A.D. Church was given it's commission under different orders. Our church now is to to observe God's direct command to follow him at all costs, ven against your religion.

Can't say I agree with your statement here...but shoot....that's what makes the world go 'round. I think the AD Church was given the same orders as the BC Church...the orders have always been the same...You shall love the Lord your God and your neighbor as yourself (that's Torah).

Wasn't Peter told that the unclean foods were now Clean by decree of the Lord Almighty himself.

No...a misinterpretation of the passage...It meant that Gentiles were to be included in the Church.....and that the 18 measures (middle wall of partition) that the Shammaite Jews adopted to separate themselves from Gentiles were to be done away with. Had nothing to do with dietary law.

Surely this would compete with the dietary outlines provided for in the torah?

On the surface yes.....but look into it deeper and you will find.....

Act 10:1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian [band],
Act 10:2 [A] devout [man], and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

An interesting topic is "God Fearer".....that is the term a Jew would use in describing a Gentile who seeks to become a Jew but hasn't completed the steps to becoming a proselyte. A God Fearer would go to the synagogue and seek the steps necessary to convert to Judaism, including observing Jewish dietary laws....

Having said that......Cornelius would have eaten "kosher" and would never have offered Peter anything but....Kosher. The issue was the "man made" law (18 Measures) that prohibited Peter from even entering the house....A Jewish fear that he would accidentally eat forbidden food.


But it doesn't, because Christ accomplished the law, we now follow His word directly from now on.

Agreed....but what was his word......?

Mat 22:36 Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law?
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Jesus...no where......ever suggests the demise of the Torah....Even during the Messianic Millennium he will teach Torah to the world from Jerusalem...There are numerous OT passages that suggest this.

I do not mean to attack the Torah, but the fact is that a believer is not judged this way or that by the torah in regards to sin and conduct.

I don't know about that...but I do know that if a person strives to live by the Torah....they are a better person for it....after all it is obedience to God, and shouldn't we be striving to imitate Christ? What does that mean? It means following God's commandments.

The Law convicts of sin. But we have died to sin and are alive in Christ. "For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace."

Now, there is now such thing as early, pre-Pauline, Jamesine, or otherwise Christianity.

Better study that one a little further and in more depth my friend, I think you will find differently.

Our faith is not a religion and we need to be clear of that. There is only the Church of the Messiah if you really want to put it that way, because God's people were always under Christ, whether we knew his name or not. Well, I could speak to this for hours but I really must be Going. I enjoyed your post, please feel free to comment again.

color=red]And I as well,[/color] :bday:

[

 

[GundamZero]

And now we're in to it. Ok , not I Gotta do it again. :wink:

Ok, the Law.

Important Yes, requirement of salvation, no. All Scripture and accepted doctrine by the disciples of the beginnings of the Church concur.

You say a Specific Command from God applies to everyone. Let's take this logically. God commanded Israel to take Jericho. Are we supposed to do that? No.

And when you speak of Cornelius, you left out chapter 10, 9-16, in which God, as it's debated whether or not it was Christ or the GodHead, tells Peter, "Get up. Kill and eat."

As for your perpective of the law, it does not agree with scripture. For in Galations Chapter 2, Paul told us that righteousness could not be gained through the law. I'm afraid there for now, as I must pack for a trip. I may not get to speak to this for a while, but I encourage you to read carefully the New Testament, because Paul, a pharisee, was probably more learned about the law then we ever could be.

 

[Georges]

And now we're in to it. Ok , not I Gotta do it again. :wink:

and will have to again and again, I'm sure :wink:

Ok, the Law.

Important Yes, requirement of salvation, no. All Scripture and accepted doctrine by the disciples of the beginnings of the Church concur.

Agreed...

You say a Specific Command from God applies to everyone. Let's take this logically. God commanded Israel to take Jericho. Are we supposed to do that? No.

Let me rephrase..."the commandments known as the written Torah"...

And when you speak of Cornelius, you left out chapter 10, 9-16, in which God, as it's debated whether or not it was Christ or the GodHead, tells Peter, "Get up. Kill and eat."

And how many times does Peter decline....? The point is Peter was to eat socialize with the Gentiles....not kill and eat unclean food.


As for your perpective of the law, it does not agree with scripture.

That depends on your point of view...can you really call Paul's letters scripture? The OT is legitimate scripture.....NT? It's been edited an awful lot....

For in Galations Chapter 2, Paul told us that righteousness could not be gained through the law.

This is where I get into trouble with the Mods and many here in forumland...I think Paul (or his intellectual descendents) subverted the teachings of the Church at Jerusalem (the real Apostles)....As put forth in other posts...Paul created Pauline Christianity, a blend of Judaism, Mithraism and Gnosticism....Can the letters of Paul be trusted, yes and no.

Please don't get trapped into the mindset of "Law, dun... dun... dun (dramatic music)" as being an unbearable burden. You are falling into the trap of viewing Torah as a burden and not a pleasure....You are falling into the trap of "I must obey the Law" instead of "I relish obeying the Law".

I'm afraid there for now, as I must pack for a trip. I may not get to speak to this for a while, but I encourage you to read carefully the New Testament, because Paul, a pharisee, was probably more learned about the law then we ever could be.

Godspeed on your trip......I've been through it many times for many years....been on both sides of the arguement many times over many years...A careful study provides many questions on to who Paul really was.....

 

[thessalonian]

Modern Christianity is grafted on to remnant Isreal. (see Romans 11). Replacement theology is errant thinking on this matter.