The Magna Carta of RT - Gal. 4:21-31

[Ben Masada]

The Magna Carta of RT - Gal. 4:21-31

&. Needless to remind of, RT stands for Replacement Theology.

1. Gal. 4:21 - It means that the Church of Galatia used to be a Nazarene synagogue which Paul had overturned into a Christian church.

2. Gal. 4:22 - Abraham had two sons: Ishmael with Agar and Isaac with Sarah.

3. Gal. 4:23 - Ishmael was born after the flesh and Isaac was born after the promise.

4. Gal. 4:24 - Two Covenants: The Jewish one points to bondange after Agar.

5. Gal. 4:25 - Agar points to Jerusalem in bondage under the Jews.

6. Gal. 4:26 - The Promised Jerusalem from above is free and the mother of Christianity.

7. Gal. 4:27 - Christians must rejoice as Sarah for mothering many more children aka Christians.

8. Gal. 4:28 - Christians, after Isaac, are the children of the promise in Jesus.

9. Gal. 4:29 - Jews who are born after the flesh persecute Christians who are born of the spirit.

10. Gal. 4:30 - Scripture says to cast out Agar aka the Jewish covenant and her son aka the Jews for they shall not be heir with Isaac aka Christians, the son of Sarah aka Christianity.

11. Gal. 4:31 - Christians are not children of Agar, the bond woman but of Sarah the free one.

12. Conclusion - Can any one still claim that there is no RT in the NT? Hardly!

 

[jamie]

12. Conclusion - Can any one still claim that there is no RT in the NT? Hardly!

The Hebrew Bible and the NT are based on two different priesthoods for two different groups of people.

For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. (Hebrews 7:14-16 NKJV)​

 

[Ben Masada]

The Magna Carta of RT - Gal. 4:21-31

The Hebrew Bible and the NT are based on two different priesthoods for two different groups of people.

For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. (Hebrews 7:14-16)

The truth is so much different from what you have posted above! But why the priesthood of Christianity, a different religion had to replace that of another religion aka Judaism? (Heb. 7:12, 22) That's the point here. Replacement Theology. Other religions would not get involved with Judaism; why Christianity had to try to vandalize Judaism in order to find an identification for itself?

Can you prove that your lord arose from the Tribe of Judah? No, you can't. Only faith can guarantee your wish-thinking. You are only telling us that you have no idea about Jewish Culture which teaches that Tribal inheritance runs down only through the father. It means that to be of the Tribe of Judah, Jesus had to be Joseph's biological son.

Thanks to the NT, Jesus lost that chance. Don't even think about adoption because Jewish Culture left Tribal inheritance out of the rights enjoyed by adoptees in Israel. And there is one more thing if you are thinking about his mother Mary. She was from the Tribe of Levi if you read Luke 1:5,36 and, even if she had been from the Tribe of Judah, it would not help because according to the same Jewish Cultural rule the mother was responsible only to the Jewish identity but not the Tribal one. It means that if Jesus was not a biological son of Joseph, he was a Jew because of Mary but a Jew without a Tribe in Israel for having a Gentile for a father.

According to the famous Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus, to have a Gentile for a father was excessively common in the First Century in Israel as a result of Roman soldier's rapes of young Jewish ladies. So much so that thousands of bastards were born in Israel. Hence the answer the Jews gave to Jesus when this called them children of the Devil and they said, at least we are not children of fornication. (John 8:41,44) Perhaps they had in mind the catastrophic rape crimes perpetrated by the Romans in Israel.

Now, about Melchizedek, I have already written all that I needed in the thread, "The Truth About Melchizedek."

 

[dialm]

Magma Carta is a big boy document.

Can you give anything from history prior to the Magma Carta that is comparable to it?

In other words, what did the Magna Carta replace?

 

[tetelestai]

12. Conclusion - Can any one still claim that there is no RT in the NT? Hardly!

Of course there is.

The New Covenant has replaced the Old Covenant.

The law and the priesthood also changed:

(Heb 7:12) For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.

The law of the spirit filled life in Christ Jesus has replaced the law of sin and death:

(Rom 8:2) For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

IOW, the Old Covenant, the old priesthood, and the old law have all be REPLACED by a New Covenant, a new priesthood, and a new law.

 

[Ben Masada]

Magma Carta is a big boy document.

Can you give anything from history prior to the Magma Carta that is comparable to it?

In other words, what did the Magna Carta replace?

The Magna Carta here is the most important document among many. The only thing in History more important than the Magna Carta was the delivery of the Decalogue to Israel at the Mount Sinai.

 

[Ben Masada]

1 - Of course there is. The New Covenant has replaced the Old Covenant.

2 - The law and the priesthood also changed:

3 - (Heb 7:12) For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.

4 - The law of the spirit filled life in Christ Jesus has replaced the law of sin and death:

5 - (Rom 8:2) For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

6 - IOW, the Old Covenant, the old priesthood, and the old law have all be REPLACED by a New Covenant, a new priesthood, and a new law.

1 - Nice try! I suggest that you try it again because the New Covenant was made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. Nothing to do with the Gentiles. (Jer. 31:31)

2 - Nice change! From the Priesthood according to the order of Aaron to the Priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek, the pagan king of the Canaanites. (Heb. 7:21)

3 - Not according to the real Jesus who said that as long as heaven and earth exist not a single letter of the Law will change. Have heaven and earth ceased to exist yet? (Mat. 5:17-19) I don't think so!

4 - What's the difference between the Law of spirit and the Law of the Decalogue? I don't believe you have a right answer to that.

5 - How could any thing in this word make one free from the Law of the Decalogue? The world would turn into a law of the jungle.

6 - The Law of the Decalogue has been replaced! By what law? Can you elaborate a little further?

 

[Interplanner]

Ben,
It's been good to find you, to work on these questions. I thought you would have put this in ECT, but here we are.

re what law to practice: Paul often dismissed the ceremonial and dietary laws, but never the core moral. I just found a good example of this while reading recently: I Cor 7:17+. (He says first that he proscribes this same thing in all churches). If a person was circumcised when called to be a Christian, they don't change that. Uncircumcised? Don't change it. Thus verse 19.

As for the RT issue, I don't think you've backed up quite far enough to grasp what is being said. It's back in 3:17. No one would write 3:17 unless Judaism had misunderstood the relation between the Promise and the Law. There was a replacement, and Paul is addressing that replacement. I think if you check commentary, they think Paul is referring to post-exilic Judaism and what it thought.

"Vandalize" (your term) villifies what the NT does. Instead, the NT is saying it is the fulfillment of many themes, motifs and images of the OT.

 

[dialm]

The Magna Carta here is the most important document among many. The only thing in History more important than the Magna Carta was the delivery of the Decalogue to Israel at the Mount Sinai.

One could say that the Magna Carta replaced Theocracy. Thank God for that!

 

[Ben Masada]

Ben,
It's been good to find you, to work on these questions. I thought you would have put this in ECT, but here we are.

re what law to practice: Paul often dismissed the ceremonial and dietary laws, but never the core moral. I just found a good example of this while reading recently: I Cor 7:17+. (He says first that he proscribes this same thing in all churches). If a person was circumcised when called to be a Christian, they don't change that. Uncircumcised? Don't change it. Thus verse 19.

As for the RT issue, I don't think you've backed up quite far enough to grasp what is being said. It's back in 3:17. No one would write 3:17 unless Judaism had misunderstood the relation between the Promise and the Law. There was a replacement, and Paul is addressing that replacement. I think if you check commentary, they think Paul is referring to post-exilic Judaism and what it thought.

"Vandalize" (your term) villifies what the NT does. Instead, the NT is saying it is the fulfillment of many themes, motifs and images of the OT.

Hi Interplanner! You say above that Paul often dismissed the ceremonial and dietary laws, but NEVER the core moral of the laws. I have heard never to say never because we never know.

Have you ever read Romans 7:1-7? It is about a Pauline allegory of the widow whose husband had died and she had become free of the law that kept her subject to him because of the marriage covenant. And now, with the death of her husband, she was set free of that law.

According to Paul, that allegory would point to the freedom from the Law with the death of Jesus. One may wonder what law was Paul talking about until he or she read the text again and stopped in verse 7. Here it is what it says, "...for I had not known lust, except the Law had said, 'You shall not covet.'"

Now, where is it written "Thou shall not covet?" In the Decalogue Interplanner; in the core moral of all the Jewish laws. God's own Law for Heaven's sake! And you tried to make it very clear that Paul had NEVER tried to dismiss the core moral of the laws. Something serious, isn't it? That's the core of Replacement Theology Interplanner; and you never say never again.

 

[Ben Masada]

One could say that the Magna Carta replaced Theocracy. Thank God for that!

I agree with you. I was never too friendly with that form of Government. The humanist side of me bends to the fact that men must learn how to govern themselves. And I believe that's God's will.

 

[jamie]

3 - Not according to the real Jesus who said that as long as heaven and earth exist not a single letter of the Law will change. Have heaven and earth ceased to exist yet? (Mat. 5:17-19) I don't think so!

The Torah hasn't changed, it has always been for Israel. Gentiles are not subject to biblical Jewish laws, you should know that.

 

[dialm]

jamie,

I really like those poodles. I had a toy poodle named Tia. She was my favorite all time and somewhat of a clown.

Maybe the Torah has changed? It certainly has less force. For example not one person can be legally stoned to death. That is harsh and unusual punishment. A barbaric act at the very least.

 

[tetelestai]

1 - Nice try! I suggest that you try it again because the New Covenant was made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. Nothing to do with the Gentiles. (Jer. 31:31)

Read Hosea, the Israelites from the 10 tribes became mixed with pagan Gentiles when God scattered them, told them they weren't a people, and had no mercy on them.

700 years later, the vast majority of descendants of Ephraim couldn't be distinguished from a pagan Gentile.

2 - Nice change! From the Priesthood according to the order of Aaron to the Priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek, the pagan king of the Canaanites. (Heb. 7:21)

(Gen 14:18) And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

Regardless of who you think Melchizedek was, or wasn't, the priesthood changed, and therefore, so did the law.

3 - Not according to the real Jesus who said that as long as heaven and earth exist not a single letter of the Law will change. Have heaven and earth ceased to exist yet? (Mat. 5:17-19) I don't think so!

We now live in the new heavens and the new earth.

The old heavens and old earth came to a complete end in 70AD

4 - What's the difference between the Law of spirit and the Law of the Decalogue? I don't believe you have a right answer to that.

The law of the spirit filled life in Christ Jesus is what saves people from the law of sin and death.

Eternal life is only through faith in Christ Jesus, not the law of sin and death.

5 - How could any thing in this word make one free from the Law of the Decalogue? The world would turn into a law of the jungle.

Faith in Christ Jesus sets one free from the law of sin and death.

6 - The Law of the Decalogue has been replaced! By what law? Can you elaborate a little further?

The law of the spirit filled life in Christ Jesus.

The old law (the law of sin and death) has been replaced.

Believers in Christ Jesus are the children of Abraham, they are the children of the free woman (Sarah). Those who try to keep the law, and/or those who claim they are physical descendants of Abraham are the children of Hagar the slave woman.

 

[jamie]

Don't even think about adoption because Jewish Culture left Tribal inheritance out of the rights enjoyed by adoptees in Israel.

Is that why Ephraim and Manasseh never received land?

 

[tetelestai]

Is that why Ephraim and Manasseh never received land?

Jacob told Joseph the following regarding Ephraim and Manasseh:

(Gen 48:19 KJV) And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.

Can you tell us the great people the descendants of Manasseh became?

Can you tell us the multitude of nations the descendants of Ephraim became?

 

[dialm]

If it is ok to replace a Theocracy then why stop there?

Why not replace the Torah? Especially since the Torah does not seem to hold any particular power.

And if the Torah is replaced then what is the next logical step?

No. You are stuck with a Theocracy. You can't have anything else.

 

[Ben Masada]

The Magna Carta of RT - Gal. 4:21-31

The Torah hasn't changed, it has always been for Israel. Gentiles are not subject to biblical Jewish laws, you should know that.

Yes, I do know that, but then again, why all this anti-Jewish attitude to replace the Theology of Israel with the NT and, especially by using a Jew whose Faith was Judaism to preach against his own Faith?

 

[tetelestai]

especially by using a Jew whose Faith was Judaism to preach against his own Faith?

Because the Apostle Paul knew that the New Covenant had replaced the Old Covenant.

Paul was a minister of the New Covenant.

 

[dialm]

Yes, I do know that, but then again, why all this anti-Jewish attitude to replace the Theology of Israel with the NT and, especially by using a Jew whose Faith was Judaism to preach against his own Faith?

To be fair you might want to consider giving a time line. When did Judism start. Important points in time. Etc.