Supersessionism and Antisemitism

[ToBeLoved]

tobeloved,

1. Sorry but you should read closer. God gave woman for man in a relationship in the beginning and actual contractual marriage.
Matthew 5:31-32; It hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, cause th her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. This agrees with Romans 7:1-4 and Jesus taught the law of Moses to the Jews and the context is about the law of Moses.
One has to learn how to connect the dots by reconciling the scriptures properly on the subject.

2. Some say it is talking about being Roman law?
Why? Because it was written to the Roman church and they lived in Rome.
The Roman's had nothing was not under the Mosaic law which is the context of Roman's 7.
Either way it would not matter in the actual point which is being dead to the Old Covenant of law context and alive to the New Covenant of Christ finished work at Calvary.

3. We agree on the main point of not being obligated to the Old Covenant context.

4. You made an accusation that I am just spinning but never said what you thought I was spinning.
I guess your implication of not Israel per say might be what you think I am spinning.
I have shoe the scriptures to prove it is all related and how it relates to it.
You can disagree but you cannot scripturally rebut what the scriptures say about it that I have shown. You are free to try.
BTW, when I post it is a no spin zone. Jerry kelso

The reply was not to you, I believe, so I'm not getting this?

 

[miknik5]

If someone hates another person, anything will be used for that hate. DNA is not 100% reliable simply because all things are subject to human fallibility. With all the interbreeding throughout the Bible and history of Jews and Gentiles, I find it highly unlikely there remains a direct genetic line of descendants from Judah.

So as discussed with Open Heart, for whom is the land of Israel being saved by Jesus second coming? A tribe based upon culture? The land was promised to Abraham and his seed. Paul clearly states in Galatians that the seed is Jesus, not the descendants of Abraham. The land was not promised to the children of Ishmael, who is a descendant of Abraham, nor Esau and his descendants who is brother to Jacob, nor to any of the children of Keturah, also descendants of Abraham. It is only promised to Abraham and his seed. Isaac understood who the seed was as did Jacob, who sought the promise and bought it from Esau for a morsel of food. Esau was the first born of the twins and had the promise by right of the first born.

Jacob gained that right of the seed but his first born, Reuben did not. Nor is it clear from that point on who had that right apart from the genealogy showing that it was Judah, the 4th born. But God did not give the land of Israel to Judah, only a portion. After the Exodus He divided the land amidst the 12 tribes, sans Levi whose inheritance was the Lord.

As I told Open Heart, the Church does not replace Israel it replaces humanity.

It was never land that was the inheritance to begin with

Ruth obtained the true inheritance because she had her heart on and recognized greater treasure than temporal things

 

[jerry kelso]

I am talking about political things. The political law followed by all the people living in Rome.

Jesus said to follow all the laws of the land.

tobeloved,

1. Roman's 7 has nothing to do with political laws.
Now if you are calling Marriage laws of Rome being political it would not matter because it is paralleled with being dead to the law of Moses.

2. Jesus said to render to Caesar what is Caesar's and God what is God's.
God made marriage and the Old Covenant and the New Covenant and made the New Covenant replace the Old Covenant.

3. One more time; the parallel is a human marriage with the woman being bound to her husband for life and is not released unless he dies.
If she went with another man while being married at the same time she would be an adulteress.
It causes the struggle of the Spirit of the lawand cannot coexist with the New Covenant which we are to be alive to.
You can't live the law if you're dead to it which we are supposed to be.
You can't be alive to the New Covenant if you're alive to the law of the Old Covenant. Jerry kelso

 

[jerry kelso]

The reply was not to you, I believe, so I'm not getting this?

tobeloved,

Sorry for the confusion with open hearts post.
I believe we agree with the same point except the per say not Israel comment or the Roman political laws of the land.
Jerry kelso

 

[Open Heart]

And who are the people? The promised land people? And scripture for it.

Are you saying you don't agree it is Israel?

 

[Open Heart]

1. Roman's 7:1-4 is about a woman being bound to her husband as longs as he lives.

As I said, this is not a metaphor for Israel. You can repeat it a gazillion times, and it will still be null.

 

[Open Heart]

2. Replace? Jeremiah 31:-31-32: Hebrews 8:6-7,9.

Neither passage states that the New Covenant replaces the Old Covenant.

I'll ask you one more time before I write you off as a nuisance who just keeps repeating the same irrelevant stuff, give me ONE VERSE that states the New Covenant REPLACES the Old.

 

[Open Heart]

4. You need to show the scriptures plainly for your position and properly rebut what scriptures and context I have shown or else I would have to conclude you may not have a leg to stand on.

Actually I don't. The default position is that the original covenant stands unless you can prove that it doesn't. You haven't proven it.

 

[Open Heart]

5. Why are so bent on believing you are under the Mosaic law.

Depends on what you mean by "under" Mosaic law. I don't believe that the Mosaic covenant gets me into heaven--it is not salvific. But the Torah is my birthright. Torah is what binds the Jewish people together. When a Jew stops observing Torah, their grandkids no longer identify as Jews -- their line is lost to Israel. And what better way is there for me to show my love for God than to obey His commands? John 15:10 If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

 

[Open Heart]

I don't think it is per se a metaphor for Israel, but it is the example given for how someone is freed from an obligation, which was written to show how freedom from the law is obtained through Christ. That is the entire reason for that chapter.

You must learn to objectively read scripture without putting your own spin on the words or meaning. You are reading it as what you want it to say, not what it says.

Sorry, it's just not the same thing.

 

[Open Heart]

Why are you looking for that specific word 'replacement'?

Because that is what you supersessionism claims!!!!! So to prove the point, you have to show me the words supersede, substitute, exchange, swap, replace...

 

[Open Heart]

I think 'obsolete' is a much more powerful word. It shows gone, not to be ever brought back

Beg your pardon, obsolete does NOT mean gone. It means it doesn't have that use anymore. It is true that the Torah doesn't lead to eternal life. And that's not why I observe it.

 

[jerry kelso]

As I said, this is not a metaphor for Israel. You can repeat it a gazillion times, and it will still be null.

open heart,

1. I see you have no open heart on this subject and you have no scriptural proof to prove me wrong. All you are doing is disagreeing with me and the Word of God.

2. God created marriage between a man and a woman for life? Do you agree with that? Even before Moses day.
Jesus taught the same thing save for fornication. Do you believe that?
Jesus taught the Mosaic law? Do you believe that?
The parallel of this and not being married to another at the same time is adultery. Do you believe this?
The only way to have the New husband is for the first one to be dead.
This parallels with us being dead to the law of Moses so we can be alive to the New Covenant.
Do you think the law of the woman bound to her husband is Roman law?
Even if it is, it doesn't matter the parallel is the same
If you think differently explain your view of the passage and quit just disagreeing.
The law of the woman bound to her husband until death is not only a parallel to being dead to the law of Moses and alive to the New Covenant of Christ and the rest of the context of the chapter was that the law was Holy and Good but that the law of sin and death took advantage of the law of Moses that was Holy and Good and how it caused self effort and made them live the sin more than overcoming sin and that there was a better way which was the law of the Spirit Roman's 8:2.

2. You can refuse to answer and rebut properly and give no scriptural proof and your position will be null and void.
Jerry kelso

 

[jerry kelso]

Actually I don't. The default position is that the original covenant stands unless you can prove that it doesn't. You haven't proven it.

open heart,

1. You have not proved scripturally that the law of Moses is still in effect or even modified.
I have given you scripture and it's context.
Galatians 3:19 plainly says the law came because of transgressions and was till the seed should come which was the Messiah. Why? So the promise of Messiah to save man which we know was the Levitical priesthood and blood of bulls and goats.
So I understand that directly it was salvation but it is a part of the big picture of the abolishment of the whole context of the Mosaic Covenant of law.

2. Your modification of the law vs. the whole law being abolished is the argument.

3. The Ten Commandments being a ministration of death was to be done away with. 2 Corinthians 3:7. The glory of the 10 Commandments under Moses law ministry of condemnation not as glorious as the ministration of righteousness Verse 9.
Verse 13 was plain about Moses with the veil over his head so Israel could not see what would be abolished. Reference to Exodus 34:32-35.
That was the Ten Commandments which was 9 moral laws and the ceremonial sabbath that was abolished and this is why Israel is still blind when the Torah is read which Moses wrote.

4. Verse 6 says we are able ministers of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the Spirit. For the Letter killeth and the Spirit giveth life.
I understand this can and is used to prove the Mosaic law is separate from the Covenant and is still in effect only to the Spirit and not to the letter.

5. The problem is the Ten Commandments was a summation of the whole law and it moral with exception to the sabbath.
But you say the Moral law could not be done away with or abolished but that is what it is saying.
It could not be the moral law within the moral itself because it was before the law of Moses and he has always been the moral governor of the universe.
It stands to reason that what was abolished was the context of the Ten Commandments according to the Mosaic Law which was the Old Covenant.
You can make modification and non-abolish arguments in certain scriptures but it won't reconcile with the overall context which is the abolishment of the whole law of Moses.

6. For the Jew the law was forever but not under the letter of Moses.
It would be under the New Covenant of Christ.
The letter involves the commandments about doing the commandments and how to do them and in what spirit or motive.

7. Since the Jew culturally was wrapped in the law of Moses Jews can be Jews by practicing the Jewish way of living.

8. The Gentiles were never under the covenant and Peter didn't want to put the customs of Jewish onto them which he called a yoke of bondage.
Physical circumcision was in Judaism in the Old Covenant and was mandatory not just to perform but not use it as justification for salvation.
Gentiles can do physical circumcision but not to be justified for salvation either.

9. Modification of the law means to live the letter with the right spirit or motive and for the Jew this fits the context of culture and gentiles would have to become Jews like the stranger at the gates proselyted.
The abolishment of the Mosaic law of the Old Covenant prevents the Gentiles from falling into the mentality of the law of its weakness for most have no deep enough understanding of the Mosaic law and the mechanics of the covenant.
It also helps Jews understand the better promises of the New Covenant through the power of Christ.
Legally, the Old Covenant has been replaced by the New Covenant which has to be understood as an Old Will and a New Will.

10. Last, Hebrews 9: 16-17; the testator had to die before the Testament could be in force and had no strength while the testator was living. This is in connection with Roman's 7:1-4 of not being able to coexist.
The only way your modification view can work for a Jew is through the New Covenant and it's standard and ethics and the poet of the risen Lord.
The only sure way to come to an agreement is probably to go through the 613 laws and see if you can do them and how and why. Jerry kelso

 

[ToBeLoved]

Beg your pardon, obsolete does NOT mean gone. It means it doesn't have that use anymore. It is true that the Torah doesn't lead to eternal life. And that's not why I observe it.

It is the entire Old Covenant and everything that is included in it. The Covenant is obsolete because their is now a New Covenant. The one promised in Isaiah and Jeremiah.

Do you understand what is all included in the Old Covenant?

I'm not sure why you are specifically stating the Torah in this.

 

[Open Heart]

1. I see you have no open heart on this subject and you have no scriptural proof to prove me wrong. All you are doing is disagreeing with me and the Word of God.

You can't just say something is a metaphor for Israel and that's that. Sorry, don't buy it.

Please don't send me any more posts on this subject. You are cluttering up my alert page. I'm not even reading your post.

 

[Open Heart]

Galatians 3:19 plainly says the law came because of transgressions and was till the seed should come which was the Messiah. Why? So the promise of Messiah to save man which we know was the Levitical priesthood and blood of bulls and goats.

I appreciate your effort. I do. So long as you offer scriptures, I will reply. (Well, as long as you aren't repeating the same scriptures over and over. LOL) And when I offer you a verse in return, you return the courtesy by replying specifically to my verse.

Notice I highlight the words AND WAS. This is because you added these words to the text. The actual verse does not have them. This is because the Law did not end with the New Covenant. That's because obeying the Law became a joy, something we do because we love God.

1 John 5:3 In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome

Now you get to reply to MY verse.

 

[Open Heart]

It is the entire Old Covenant and everything that is included in it. The Covenant is obsolete because their is now a New Covenant. The one promised in Isaiah and Jeremiah.

Disagree. If that was true, Jesus wouldn't have taught to obey his commandments, nor would the apostles have taught to obey the commands.

 

[jerry kelso]

You can't just say something is a metaphor for Israel and that's that. Sorry, don't buy it.

Please don't send me any more posts on this subject. You are cluttering up my alert page. I'm not even reading your post.

open heart,

1. I didn't say it was a metaphor for Israel. It was a reality with God in the beginning which Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount and he taught the law of Moses.

2. I also said it didn't matter if it was a Roman law, it was still paralleled with the Mosaic law and we are to be dead to the law and alive to the New Covenant of the finished work of Christ.
So the metaphor is what you said and believe.

3. The funny thing is I gave you the scriptures of Romans 7:1-4 and exegeted it for you and you just disagreed and didn't say what law it was or what the parallel and context was about. How is that fair? Try and answer that or just say you don't know but be fair. Jerry Kelso

 

[jerry kelso]

I appreciate your effort. I do. So long as you offer scriptures, I will reply. (Well, as long as you aren't repeating the same scriptures over and over. LOL) And when I offer you a verse in return, you return the courtesy by replying specifically to my verse.

Notice I highlight the words AND WAS. This is because you added these words to the text. The actual verse does not have them. This is because the Law did not end with the New Covenant. That's because obeying the Law became a joy, something we do because we love God.

1 John 5:3 In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome

Now you get to reply to MY verse.

open heart,

1. I always give you scripture and explain the context and reconcile them together so they harmonize and explain where and why you are right or wrong.

2. I showed that I understand how you exegete the passage like Galatians 3:19 so directly I don't necessarily disagree in the fact that Abraham's promise was about salvation.
The law couldn't prevent salvation from happening verse 17.
Verse 18; the law could not save a soul, otherwise there would be no reason for the promise.
Verse 19 the law was added which would be the Ten Commandments for sure because they sinned eventually after Moses gave it to them and he broke the stones and God made a couple more tablets of stone with the Ten commandments again because of their sin with the golden calf. Exodus 32:19-35; 34:1; 28.

3. Verses 29:35 is shown in 2 Corinthians 3:11 is the Ten Commandments that was done away though it was glorious but what remained was much more glorious was the New Testament v6.
Verse 12 Paul says we have hope we use great plainness of speech. The hope was the New Covenant Christ finished work Matthew 26:28 to make us able ministers of the New Testament v1.
Verse 13; and not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which was abolished. What was abolished? The Ten Commandments written in stone which was the ministration of death v 7 and the ministration of condemnation v9.

4. Romans 8:1 says there is now therefore no condemnation in Christ Jesus.

5. The NC is based on Jesus death, burial and resurrection and everything contained in the law of Christ and righteousness of faith not the Mosaic law.

6. 1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God that we keep his commandments and his commandments are not grievous.
The commandments point back to 1 John 1-5 according to 2 John verse 6. We are supposed to walk in the NC which is the law of Christ and New Covenant salvation which is the basis of our rule of life and allegiance to all the commandments in the NC including how and why and the right kind of motive behind it the whole context of the NC.

7. Now if you go back to the basic idea behind the ( Will) that contains similar and different things or same things in a different manner etc you will understand how the Mosaic law was abolished and would be replaced by a New Covenant.
There are commandments that have to with Jewish culture that are permissible and keep Judaism Judaism and Jews Jews.
If you are talking about spiritual principles and morals you would have to take
into consideration the whole mechanics of the covenants and how we enact them and why etc.
It is late so we can pick upon this tomorrow. Jerry Kelso