Replies

This line of pernicious thought is called Replacement Theology and has been challenged time and time again as being gravely in error. First and foremost it supposes that God is willing to break his Covenants. And that would deny the value and meaning of a Covenant in the first place. In Deuteronomy, it was cast that the Jews would proceed into error after error and pain and suffering through the ages. This list of blessings and curses is weighted heavily on the curse side, but this is all in accord with God's will.

So to claim that God would break his Covenant and forsake those who he nurtured to bring his faith to the world is bizarre. Worse, the concept of grafting Christianity onto the root of Judiasm as opposed to the tree makes no difference to the issue that if the root were to ever disappear, then the grafted limbs would die as well.

Instead, Christianity developed to provide a path where non-Jews might reach out and learn and practice the way of God's will.

These scholars don't suppose that Jews have fallen from God's grace out of animus per se, but rather out of ignorance. For any person may become a Jew, but it takes a lifetime and the commitment is binding not just to that individual but on the generations that follow and God, happily accepts Christians just the same, as he does all of the Righteous. For Jew or not, we are all equal in his sight. Jews know this and they are commanded to treat the stranger as well or better than any member of the community.

Nevertheless, words like these are used to justify that Jews are lesser people and hated by God and those who take this evil into their hearts pass it along and ultimately, must pay the price for the horror that is created.

Gonzo, you say you don't necessarily agree with this but feel obliged to post it. Fine, but a lie repeated is often worse than the lie itself. Consider only repeating the truth, this is much more valuable.

This line of pernicious thought is called Replacement Theology and has been challenged time and time again as being gravely in error. First and foremost it supposes that God is willing to break his Covenants.

It should be clear from 173, that God did not break the Covenants, the Jews did, by rejecting Christ.

"Gonzo, you say you don't necessarily agree with this but feel obliged to post it. Fine, but a lie repeated "

I said neither.

You say it's a lie.