Replacement Theology

Ben Masada · Post by **Ben Masada** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 4:15 am

Replacement Theology

Replacement Theology is as old as Christianity itself, considering that the etimology of the expression acquired its real meaning with the rise of Christianity.

Some people object to the focusing on Christianity for the reason why Replacement Theology originated, because the Jewish People was not the only ancient people with the original claim to be God's chosen People.

It's true that a few other ancient peoples upheld the same claim, but there was never one to rise with the claim that a people had been replaced by another as God's chosen People.

Christianity became the first religious organization to rise with the claim that a change had occurred in the designs of God, which would define the rejection of the Jewish People, and resplacement with Christianity.

The classical NT document, which would give rise to this Christian policy is found in Galatians 4:21-31.

Paul would compare God's Covenant with the Jewish People as Hagar, who was Sara's slave girl, and the Jews as her son, who was rejected even to share with Isaac, the inheritance of Canaan. On the other hand, he compares Christianity to Sara and Christians to her son Isaac.

To conclude, Paul appeals to cast out the slave girl together with her son for the obvious reason that Israel, the Jewish People, would never be an heir with the son of the one born free.

That's the picture of Replacement Theology and not simply a people claiming Divine election. A group of Interfaith Scholars have classified Replacement Theology as a kind of Antisemitism.

Ben

kayky · Post by **kayky** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:56 pm

Ben Massada wrote:Because these so called progressive Christians think that the only way to contemplate God is from the anthropomorphic poit of view. God is incorporeal.

You obviously know nothing about progressive Christianity. We find the idea of an anthropomorphic god ridiculous.

Ben Masada · Post by **Ben Masada** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 2:02 pm

kayky wrote:
Ben Massada wrote:Because these so called progressive Christians think that the only way to contemplate God is from the anthropomorphic poit of view. God is incorporeal.
You obviously know nothing about progressive Christianity. We find the idea of an anthropomorphic god ridiculous.

Well, you are being a good teacher. That's the message you are giving to me about progressive Chrsitianity.

kayky · Post by **kayky** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 2:08 pm

Ben Massada wrote:Because these so called progressive Christians think that the only way to contemplate God is from the anthropomorphic poit of view. God is incorporeal.

Kayky wrote:You obviously know nothing about progressive Christianity. We find the idea of an anthropomorphic god ridiculous.

Ben Massada wrote:Well, you are being a good teacher. That's the message you are giving to me about progressive Chrsitianity.

What could I have possibly said to give you such an idea?

Ben Masada · Post by **Ben Masada** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 2:12 pm

kayky wrote:
Ben Massada wrote:Because these so called progressive Christians think that the only way to contemplate God is from the anthropomorphic poit of view. God is incorporeal.

Kayky wrote:You obviously know nothing about progressive Christianity. We find the idea of an anthropomorphic god ridiculous.

Ben Massada wrote:Well, you are being a good teacher. That's the message you are giving to me about progressive Chrsitianity.
What could I have possibly said to give you such an idea?

Reread your posts.

kayky · Post by **kayky** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 2:18 pm

Ben Massada wrote:Reread your posts.

You made the claim; it is your responsibility to back it up--not send me on a wild goose chase. According to forum rules, a challenged claim must be either supported with actual evidence or withdrawn.

Jonah · Post by **Jonah** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 5:44 pm

Yes, ben masada. I agree that we're saying the same thing.

Kay, what does "christ" (greek for annointed or messiah) mean cut off from the Hebrew word "mashiach"?

I understand that Spong is a teacher you follow. And, I understand his rather complete disinterest in Judaism. But, I am honestly scratching my head why, then, is there a reason to retain the name or term of "christ"....if the whole concept of a christ/messiah originated in Judaism?

kayky · Post by **kayky** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:29 pm

Jonah wrote:
Kay, what does "christ" (greek for annointed or messiah) mean cut off from the Hebrew word "mashiach"?

I understand that Spong is a teacher you follow. And, I understand his rather complete disinterest in Judaism. But, I am honestly scratching my head why, then, is there a reason to retain the name or term of "christ"....if the whole concept of a christ/messiah originated in Judaism?

I think I did say on another thread that it is of academic interest as far as having a historical understanding of Christianity. There's nothing special about retaining the term Christ except tradition. We could substitute another word I suppose. But I don't see the benefit of that. I like old things.

Jonah · Post by **Jonah** » Tue Jun 02, 2009 12:22 am

I was assuming if "christ" was discarded, that would also mean "christianity" is no longer a useful term. And then what?

I guess another way to put the question is if we go through the list of things Spong would discard, what is left?

Okay.

No physical resurrection, but a spiritual one.
No messiah figure, but a calling for the "church" to be messianic perhaps toward the world.
No heaven and hell. No afterlife. Eternal life is a qualitative concept.
And then what is the content of that qualitative eternal life? Love of God & Neighbor, huh?

What should this religion be called?

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Tue Jun 02, 2009 1:00 am

Jonah wrote:I was assuming if "christ" was discarded, that would also mean "christianity" is no longer a useful term. And then what?

I guess another way to put the question is if we go through the list of things Spong would discard, what is left?

Okay.

No physical resurrection, but a spiritual one.
No messiah figure, but a calling for the "church" to be messianic perhaps toward the world.
No heaven and hell. No afterlife. Eternal life is a qualitative concept.
And then what is the content of that qualitative eternal life? Love of God & Neighbor, huh?

What should this religion be called?

Panentheist humanism?

Jonah · Post by **Jonah** » Tue Jun 02, 2009 1:50 am

Okay. Panentheistic Humanism.

This was what was taught in college Religion departments back in the mid to late 70's. It's old now. I subscribed when I was 19 for about a year.

Then when I hit the brutal world of seminary (professional school where they teach you how to represent an institution), I and my fellow students were hit square in the face by our profs with a question about our college panentheism:

Can you run a church on THAT?