REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY: THE BACKDOOR ASSAULT ON THE INTEGRITY OF SCRIPTURE

Jonathan Brentner ^ | 2/27/24 | Jonathan Brentner

[Zionist Conspirator]

Current day Judaism is derived from Phariseeism and actually dates to AFTER 70 AD, so is a “niece” religion to Christianity and about 40 odd years YOUNGER

I suppose you're too stubborn to see that this "Judaism comes from the Pharisees" line is identical to the "Catholicism/Orthodoxy was invented by Constantine" used by traditional Protestants.

Also, the Pharisees' dispute with the Tzadduqim was that the latter were "sola scriptura" while the former were defenders of holy tradition. I suppose you don't see the irony of that either?

Also, if there were no Pharisees before the year "70," then why are there so many Pharisees in the "new testament?"

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Agree with 1/4 of what you posted.

[BereanBrain]

I find systematic theology is NOT biblical.

We are meant to prove everything from the scriptures, not a book (or books) written by man.

So, by definition, any structural framework of bible understanding must therefore be at least a little wrong, if not badly wrong.

Sola Scriptura.

Any other gospel is accursed.

Be like the Bereans and prove all things (searching day and night) from the scriptures.

Most seminaries have been taken over by axe grinders of one ilk or another.

None of the apostles or early church fathers went to seminary.

[Cronos]

It's not a question of stubbornness but about sheer historical facts --> and you distorted what I said - I never said "Judaism is derived from" but specifically I said "Current day Judaism is derived from Phariseeism and actually dates to AFTER 70 AD, so is a “niece” religion to Christianity and about 40 odd years YOUNGER" -->

Rabbinical Judaism is not the predecessor religion to Christianity

Both "Christianity" and "Pharisee Judaism" are SISTER religions.

In fact what we call Judaism today is "Rabbinic Judaism" and is YOUNGER than Christianity.

So, the religion that you joined, ZC, isn't the predecessor of Christianity, but derived from a competing 2nd temple sect of 2nd temple Judaism i.e. the Pharisee sect of 2nd temple Judaism

[Cronos]

As to "Catholicism/Orthodoxy was invented by Constantine" --> that is historically false as well and one doesn't need to go down the religious line:

1. The theology and dogma of the Catholic/Orthodox/Oriental Church whether the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, the Theotokos, the True presence in the Eucharist etc. are all present and attested in the Church before Constantine's grandfather was born.
   
   
2. Similarly the ecclesiology, the organizational structure etc. are all attested by both christian and non-christian sources well before Constantine was born
   
   
3. Finally, Constantine didn't get baptized a Catholic/Orthodox/Oriental but an Arian - a non-Trinitarian theology and a competitor to Catholic/Orthodox/Oriental theology.

[Cronos]

As to Also, the Pharisees' dispute with the Tzadduqim was that the latter were "sola scriptura" while the former were defenders of holy tradition. I suppose you don't see the irony of that either?

The concept of sola scriptura dates far later than the first centuries of Christianity (leave alone the foundations of Pharisee-ism circa 4th century BC

There is a difference between the Oral Law and the "doctrines of men" which the Pharisees had been creating. They are not the same thing. The Traditions of the Elders are man-made laws regarded by the scribes and Pharisees as having the same legal binding force as that of the Written and Oral Law.

This is not the case in Christianity. No one believes that (let's take Church Law for example) Church Law is on par with or equal to the initial deposit of faith, which is given to us through written medium (the Scripture) and oral and demonstration (the Apostolic Tradition).

[Cronos]

Which quarter? well actually there were 5 points, so 1 point and a quarter? :)

• The prophecy in the book of Revelation is for the Jesus followers - whether of Jewish or gentile heritage.
  
  
• Chapter 2 and 3 are to churches that are varied from mixed to mostly gentile.
  
  
• Chapters 5 to 20 are about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD - and we read about not only the 144K Judeans but also the vast multitudes from all nations who are included in the worship of the Lord.
  
  
• By the time John wrote the book of Revelation *around 65 AD*, “Christianity” was still a sect of 2nd temple judaism.
  
  
• Current day Judaism is derived from Phariseeism and actually dates to AFTER 70 AD, so is a “niece” religion to Christianity and about 40 odd years YOUNGER

[Cronos]

Bb I find systematic theology is NOT biblical. --> systematic theology is highly biblical - right from King josiah onwards

[Cronos]

Bb We are meant to prove everything from the scriptures, not a book (or books) written by man. --> systematic theology is about formulating an orderly, rational and coherent account of the doctrines of the Christian faith.

It does this to the biblical books chosen to be in canon.

[Cronos]

Bb We are meant to prove everything from the scriptures, not a book (or books) written by man. --> systematic theology is about formulating an orderly, rational and coherent account of the doctrines of the Christian faith.

It does this to the biblical books chosen to be in canon.

Furthermore, I gave you clear information from the Bible - do you disagree with these?

• By His cross Chris reconciled Jews and Gentiles, making both ONE in Himself (Eph. 2:14-16) BereanBrain disagrees with Paul?

  14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.

  and As Paul wrote "theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:4-5). -- I suppose you disagree with all of the Pauline epistles, then?"

  Or let's take The Church rejects the idea that the covenant with Israel has been nullified or revoked. The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked. -- do you disagree with that statement?

[Cronos]

Sola Scriptura. -- so many took SS to take on differing views on Replacement theology --> Paul van Buren developed a thoroughly nonsupersessionist position, in contrast to Karl Barth, his mentor.

So, were both correct?

[BereanBrain]

Josiah and Systematic Theology? It was not invented until probably the middle ages.

Here’s the DEFINITION of Systematic Theology from wiki

“With a methodological tradition that differs somewhat from biblical theology, systematic theology draws on the core sacred texts of Christianity, while simultaneously investigating the development of Christian doctrine over the course of history, particularly through philosophy, ethics, social sciences, and natural sciences. Using biblical texts, it attempts to compare and relate all of scripture which led to the creation of a systematized statement on what the whole Bible says about particular issues.”

I stand on what I said. Systematic theology is NOT BIBILICAL because it’s NOT SOLA SCRIPTURA

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Your 2nd point.

[BereanBrain]

You also seem very confused on my position of replacement theology, even claiming i believe the opposite. Let me clear it up for you.

1) Replacement theology is a lie from the pit of HELL.
2)Our adversary knows scripture, and how to take a verse and twist it around
3) God does NOT go back on His promises
4) God knew before He chose Israel how they would/would not respond
5) The Jews were saved by faith
6) Christians are saved by faith

If God changed His mind about Israel, instead of everything working out according to His plan, then why won’t He change His mind about the Church too?

If the Church INHERITS the promises of blessing of Israel (as the replacement theology people believe) then why didn’t the Church also inherit the promises of punishment of Israel?

Anybody that has casually read Romans should realize Replacement Theology is a SHAM.

Perhaps you can twist my words into sounding like something else, again.

[Zionist Conspirator]

There is a difference between the Oral Law and the "doctrines of men" which the Pharisees had been creating.

Oh sure there is.

They are not the same thing. The Traditions of the Elders are man-made laws regarded by the scribes and Pharisees as having the same legal binding force as that of the Written and Oral Law.

Now you are merely making Protestant arguments against Jewish oral and rabbinic law, just as you make Jewish arguments against Protestant "faith alone" beliefs.

There are two kinds of oral law. The first is from G-d on Mt. Sinai that was not written down in the Written Torah (at least on the surface). This is the same as your "apostolic tradition." The second is rabbinic law. The authority of the Halakhic Sages is commanded by Torah (Deuteronomy 17:11 and other places). And there is a difference between laws that are directly from G-d and those enacted by the Sages. It is so important that the Talmud is full of arguments as to whether such-and-such a law is from Sinai (Midde'Orayta') or from the Sages (Midderabbanan). These arguments exist because the issue is IMPORTANT--eg, the punishments for violating Rabbinic law are not the same as for those violating Torah Law. You don't understand this because your dogma requires you to de-legitimize Jewish oral law while legitimizing Catholic oral law.

And yet, again, the commandment to obey the Sages is in the Written Torah itself.