Replies

I was doing some Shabbat reading this evening and ran into one of the best little essays on Displacement Theology that I've read to date. Check it out.

2nd Century (100 CE): Displacement Theology

J-e-s-u-s, say the Christians, replaced Torah with 'grace' and displaced the Jews as the chosen people with goyim Christians - displacement (or replacement) theology. Christians became the "true Israel" and "true spiritual Jews," the Church claims, logically requiring that "Jews of the flesh" had been rejected by G-o-d. Jews, then, still claiming to serve Alühim, were labelled "wolves in sheep's clothing," impersonating and deceiving (ironically) "true believers." Jews were seen as enemies of G-o-d and the church. Earliest church historians described the Torah-observant and halakhic Netzarim Jews as belonging to "the wicked demon" Note (Satan).

"By the second century [i.e., 100 CE] the controversy over the Law had ceased to play the role which it had played at the earlier period. The Church had become predominantly Gentile in membership and almost exclusively so in leadership. Justin Note refers pityingly to some few [non-Jew geirim] who, from weakness, still observed the [Torah], and as a magnanimous concession on his part admitted that they might be saved, Note but he adds that other Christians would not venture to have any intercourse whatever with such persons. - The compromise arranged in [Ma'avar] and the concessions made by [Keipha] and [Shaul], had absolutely no further validity, Note and the actions of the [Netzarim shelikhim], approved in the 1st century, would, as Jerome Note and Augustine Note later agree, have been the rankest heresy once the Church was properly established. The field of controversy has shifted from the [Torah] to the promises, in other words, to the whole question of the fulfillment of all prophecy in the person of J-e-s-u-s Christ.

"We may at first wonder why the attempt to prove the reality of the Divinity of Christ made it necessary to falsify the whole of Jewish history, as the Gentile Church undoubtedly did, but if we study their approach to the problem we see that they were led on inescapably by the method of their own argumentation from the first legitimate assumption to the last and most extravagant fabrications. Note

"... The [Christian] Fathers insisted on [J-e-s-u-s' ] relation to Jewish prophecy and the divine history of His [sic] people. But ... they were compelled to interpret the whole of the Jewish scriptures in such a way as to support their own view. Note

... "The only alternative was to claim the whole of it for themselves and to antedate the rejection of the Jews and the emergence of the Church to the beginning of revealed history, by emphasizing the position of [Avraham] as the father of many nations, of whom only one, and that themselves, was chosen... Note

"The Messianic question once settled, there was an inevitable deduction to be made by the Christian writers. If J-e-s-u-s was the Messiah promised to Israel, then they were the true Israel. It is here that we see how inevitable was the defamation of the actual history of the Jews, for if the Gentiles were the true Israel, then the Jews had all the time been sailing under false colours. That [the Gentile Christians] were the true Israel they proved by innumerable passages from the prophets, in which G-o-d speaks of His rejection of His own people and His acceptance of the Gentiles. Little by little the Church was read back into the whole of Old Testament history, and Christian history was shown to be older than Jewish history in that [Christian history] dated from the creation, and not from Sinay, or even Avraham. Continual references to Christ were found in the Old Testament, and it was 'the Christ of G-o-d' who 'appeared to Abraham, gave divine instruction to Isaac, and held converse with Moses and the later prophets.

"In order to justify this reading of history, they were compelled to challenge the Jewish conception of the Law..." Note map[ping] out a consistent history of the Church in the Old Testament by contrasting it with every lapse from the ideal, while the sum of these lapses made up the whole of the history of the Jews. This method of rewriting history led later to the conclusion that the Jews were heretics, or apostates." Note

"The [Netzarim] of the [early] second century was no more the [Christian] Church of the fourth than was the Judaism of the second century the complete Judaism of the TalmudNote. . . .

We may correctly date the actual separation [i.e., the conception of Christianity and the Church; ybd] from the end of the 1st and the beginning of the second century. Note

This deliberate and connived denial of Jewish history is called displacement (or replacement) theology, and the Church is still entirely dependent on it today, with no choice but to deny Jewish history - from Jews being the true and spiritual children of Avraham, to the history of Yisrael and Yehudah (as opposed to "Palestine"), and even the Holocaust.

Acknowledging mishpat as the judgment of the Jewish Beit Din contradicted Christian hegemony. Therefore, Christian translators of the New Testament Note arrogated Mishpat as 'judgment', Note and read khuq completely out of the picture - distributing it between 'judgment,' Note righteousness', Note 'justification', Note and 'ordinances'. Note This allowed the goyim to read out the original judgments and statutes documenting the authority of the Jewish Beit Din and read in their own miso-Judaic judgments and statutes in their place. In this way, the Church disconnected the Judaic Scriptures from their Judaic context and opened the door for Roman hegemony - displacement theology. To avoid acknowledging the Beit Din system, KJV Note renders mishpat variously as "lawful," "manner," "ceremony," "fashion," "cause" and "ordinance." Khüqim is rendered as "statutes."

Halakhah, the collection of mishpat and Khüqim, and the beit din system are described in Torah and Tan"kh in terms of shaphat mishpat - lit. "judging the judgment," of the Beit Din. Most people are somewhat aware of this with respect to the Beit Din Ha-Gadol - more popularly known as the 'Great Sanhedrin' - but fail to notice the continuity of the lower batei-din which continues the unbroken chain today.

Hey Steven...more good stuff for you :-):

**************************

Jesus accepted honor and worship

Jesus demonstrated His divinity in yet another way when He said, “. . . All should honor the Son just as they honor the Father” (John 5:23). Over and over again, Jesus told His disciples to believe in Him as they would believe in God. “Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me” (John 14:1).

Jesus received worship on many occasions without forbidding such acts. A leper worshipped Him (Matthew 8:2). A ruler worshipped Him with his plea to raise his daughter from the dead (Matthew 9:18). When Jesus had stilled the storm, those in the boat worshipped Him as the Son of God (Matthew 14:33).

A Canaanite woman worshipped Him (Matthew 15:25). When Jesus met the women who came to His tomb after His resurrection, they worshipped Him, as did His apostles (Matthew 28:9, 17). The demon-possessed man of the Gadarenes, “when He saw Jesus from afar . . . ran and worshiped Him” (Mark 5:6). The blind man whom Jesus healed in John 9 worshipped Him (verse 38).

The First and Second of the Ten Commandments forbid worship of anyone or anything other than God (Exodus 20:2-5). Barnabas and Paul were very disturbed when the people of Lystra tried to worship them after their healing of a crippled man (Acts 14:13-15). In Revelation 22:8-9, when John the apostle fell down to worship the angel, the angel refused to accept worship, saying, “You must not do that! . . . Worship God!” (Revelation 22:8-9, NRSV).

Yet Jesus accepted worship and did not rebuke those who chose to kneel before Him and worship. *****************************

Now was Jesus mad and/or sacrilegious when he accepted worship that could only be due to God?

We may at first wonder why the attempt to prove the reality of the Divinity of Christ made it necessary to falsify the whole of Jewish history, as the Gentile Church undoubtedly did,

If you're going to make such a sweeping charge, you might want to provide some evidence. Any evidence or even an example of what is meant would be nice. How exactly is the "whole" of Jewish history "falisified"?

This allowed the goyim to read out the original judgments and statutes documenting the authority of the Jewish Beit Din and read in their own miso-Judaic judgments and statutes in their place. In this way, the Church disconnected the Judaic Scriptures from their Judaic context and opened the door for Roman hegemony - displacement theology. To avoid acknowledging the Beit Din system, KJV Note renders mishpat variously as "lawful," "manner," "ceremony," "fashion," "cause" and "ordinance."

I'm sure you're immersered enough so this is lucid to you, but it doesn't explain itself to me, or I'm sure to the bulk of us. If you are trying to do something other than impress us with your jargon, you're going to need to explain.

Oh, and citing the KJV as proof of an ancient "Roman" conspiracy is kinda silly.

I stand behind the ones I posted.

Post 1410:

This deliberate and connived denial of Jewish history is called displacement (or replacement) theology, and the Church is still entirely dependent on it today, with no choice but to deny Jewish history - from Jews being the true and spiritual children of Avraham, to the history of Yisrael and Yehudah (as opposed to "Palestine"), and even the Holocaust.

You stand behind this hateful nonsense? That Christians today have "no choice" than to deny the Holocaust?

For the record, there is no compelling reason why any Christian would have to deny that Abraham was the spiritual (and actual) father of the Jewish people, that they were given a land to live in and that they served a special purpose in the history of salvation.

I've never heard of the crap you post here that is claimed to be what Christians believe, must believe, are compelled to believe.

"The only alternative was to claim the whole of it for themselves and to antedate the rejection of the Jews and the emergence of the Church to the beginning of revealed history, by emphasizing the position of [Avraham] as the father of many nations, of whom only one, and that themselves, was chosen

Another example. Totally made up. Not Christian belief at all.

We may at first wonder why the attempt to prove the reality of the Divinity of Christ made it necessary to falsify the whole of Jewish history, as the Gentile Church undoubtedly did, but if we study their approach to the problem we see that they were led on inescapably by the method of their own argumentation from the first legitimate assumption to the last and most extravagant fabrications.

Now, the uninitiate in the ways of your theology might read those statements with wide-eyed innocence and interpret them as saying that the Church (specifically blond-haired, blue-eyed male Greco Romans who read Plato for breakfast and Aquinas for lunch, even proleptically) made up all of Jewish history. That idea, specifically, that the Church has fabricated all of Jewish history, is dumb. capital D capital U capital M

Now you can say a little more specifically that the Church has appropriated Jewish history incorrectly and interpreted it for their own theological ends, but that's not quite as grabbing a statement and certainly won't start any debates.

After this rather, at the very least, inaccurate statement, the author meanders on with this quote: "The only alternative was to claim the whole of it for themselves and to antedate the rejection of the Jews and the emergence of the Church to the beginning of revealed history, by emphasizing the position of [Avraham] as the father of many nations, of whom only one, and that themselves, was chosen."

Now again to the unitiated such as myself, it appears that the author is rather unabashedly implying that the Jews read no particularism into God's promise to Abraham. I find that position untenable. More likely laughable. And given that, why is it ok for the Jews to see particularism in Gen. 12 but not Christians? You can disagree that it applies to the Christian, but you cannot pretend that the interpretation is invalid by its very nature. In other words, there is no inherent self-contradiction in the claim that God's promise to Abraham points to a particularism in YHVH's dealings with humanity. Obviously, where that particularism leads to theologically is a bone of contention between us.

It is here that we see how inevitable was the defamation of the actual history of the Jews, for if the Gentiles were the true Israel, then the Jews had all the time been sailing under false colours.

Um....doesn't replacement theology by its very name discredit this statement? But, it's not a good soundbite to say that those who believe on Jesus as the Christ are grafted into the promise of God, does it? That almost sounds level-headed. Much better to say that Christians defame all of Jewish history. And what they don't defame, they make up. And what they don't make up, they ignore. I'm sure there's more.

Just in case we were to mistake the author's statement about the Christian fabrication of Jewish history, the author reiterates it here for us. And while Christians and Jews will by definition disagree upon the interpretation of Scriptural and historical accounts, it is hyperbole overdone to say that it is a denial of Jewish history to interpret the Tanakh in any other fashion than that of an orthodox Jew. And to put the capstone on the hyperbolic festival, the author throws in the Holocaust. Which, more than anything, seems to point to a very weak case. It is completely tangential and a weighted argument which does not at all speak to the depth and breadth of the Christian response to the Holocaust. But you knew that.

KJV Note renders mishpat variously as "lawful," "manner," "ceremony," "fashion," "cause" and "ordinance." Khüqim is rendered as "statutes."

Perhaps we should not translate the Bible anymore. Perhaps we should just make everyone learn the original languages. Then we would avoid pesky problems like differences in culture or languages. But then that would leave the power of the hermeneutic in the small number of hands of those who could actually study. Wait, that's starting to sound familiar. Oh, right. That's one of those things we disliked about the Catholics with their Latin and not letting people read the Bible.

Either the Gospel is accessible in other cultures or it is not. Either Jesus came to save the world or he didn't. And is salvation accomplished by converting someone to a culture? Or by transforming the individual within the culture in which they are living?