The Catholic Church doesnt teach the substitution theology anymore

Penelope

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
50,265
Reaction score
8,035
Points
2,060
My thoughts

If the covenant with the jews never ended does God still work through the chosen people will they built the temple will the 12 tribes of Israel be resurrected will the Jewish messiah arrive? To me that sounds like the Christian zionists who finance Israel I was of the opinion the church teaches that God Jesus Christ fullfill the Jewish covenant the law that Jews no longer play this salvation role that now we are saved by grace not circumcision can someone explain
Yet most Jews still do the sucking circumcision.
 

norwegen

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
9,199
Reaction score
4,049
Points
390
Location
Ormond Beach, FL
They taught Jews rejected Jesus and killed him. They choose Barnabas over Jesus and Pilate washed his hands, and said "His blood is now upon you and your children". That what the Catholic church taught since centuries. At least they taught that Jews lost the inheritance of God, that what the early Christians taught, for example St. Chrysostome on Judaisers. "They have been children and we dogs now they have become dogs and we Children". Now they are closer to Protestants again and the Zionist movement of the Protestants, who made Jerusalem Capitol of Israel. Im strictly against discrimination and persecution of Jews, or anyone else, but Religion is private and can discriminate somehow, like muslims teach that non-muslims will go to hell that is freedom of religion, but they are not allowed to discriminate us physically in this world.
According to the gospels, ethnic Israel did indeed forfeit its inheritance; Jesus handed the kingdom to the saints (Mt 21:43).
 

norwegen

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
9,199
Reaction score
4,049
Points
390
Location
Ormond Beach, FL
It never did teach "substitution theology".
Substitution theology means that Jesus brought the new covenant with the Christians as new children of God.
True.

"Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits" (Mt 21:43).

The church is Israel now. "Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother" (Gal 4:26). I don't know much about modern Judaism, but in the New Testament, Israel was taking on a new meaning. Gentiles were becoming Israel (along with converted Jews, of course). The kingdom of God would spread its branches to the far corners of the earth, not just to Israel or Judea.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
122,646
Reaction score
22,121
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Jesus was executed by Rome for treason.
How did Jesus betray Rome?
I didn't say "betray" now did I. "Betray" implies a relationship of trust broken. A relationship of trust implies CONSENT on both sides.

Rome was the empire. Judea was under its thumb for three hundred years. When Jesus (or anyone else) amassed legions of 'followers' declaring "King of the Jews" or similar position within one of its colonies, that got Rome's attention wid a quickness. Rome didn't give a shit what its subjects did religiously, but challenge their authority and down comes the hammer. Hard.
 

norwegen

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
9,199
Reaction score
4,049
Points
390
Location
Ormond Beach, FL
Jesus was executed by Rome for treason.
How did Jesus betray Rome?
I didn't say "betray" now did I. "Betray" implies a relationship of trust broken.

Rome was the empire. Judea was under its thumb for three hundred years. When Jesus (or anyone else) amassed legions of 'followers' declaring "King of the Jews" or similar position within one of its colonies, that got Rome's attention wid a quickness. Rome didn't give a shit what its subjects did religiously, but challenge their authority and down comes the hammer. Hard.
How did Jesus challenge Rome's authority? No one accused him of being the king of Rome, did they.

According to the New Testament, the Romans may have executed Jesus, but the Jews sentenced him. And not for sedition; they only accused him of sedition.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
122,646
Reaction score
22,121
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Jesus was executed by Rome for treason.
How did Jesus betray Rome?
I didn't say "betray" now did I. "Betray" implies a relationship of trust broken.

Rome was the empire. Judea was under its thumb for three hundred years. When Jesus (or anyone else) amassed legions of 'followers' declaring "King of the Jews" or similar position within one of its colonies, that got Rome's attention wid a quickness. Rome didn't give a shit what its subjects did religiously, but challenge their authority and down comes the hammer. Hard.
How did Jesus challenge Rome's authority? No one accused him of being the king of Rome, did they.

According to the New Testament, the Romans may have executed Jesus, but the Jews sentenced him. And not for sedition; they only accused him of sedition.
Simply leading all those followers is a show of strength, that's how. And starting a riot in the temple didn't help --- that's what he was arrested for. Cult followings are not known to be conducive with a competing authoritarian power who only recently took over the joint.

And I didn't say or imply Jesus passed himself on as "king of Rome" (which had emperors anyway); he was styled "King of the Jews", which is specific to a specific Roman colony; not the entire Roman Empire but a subset thereof. Why do you think he was so evasive with Pilate about that title? Because he knows how Rome views that, that's why. Everybody in that time and place knows.

Rome wasn't worried that Jesus was gonna take over Gaul, now where they. Have any idea how far the Roman Empire spread?
 

norwegen

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
9,199
Reaction score
4,049
Points
390
Location
Ormond Beach, FL
Jesus was executed by Rome for treason.
How did Jesus betray Rome?
I didn't say "betray" now did I. "Betray" implies a relationship of trust broken.

Rome was the empire. Judea was under its thumb for three hundred years. When Jesus (or anyone else) amassed legions of 'followers' declaring "King of the Jews" or similar position within one of its colonies, that got Rome's attention wid a quickness. Rome didn't give a shit what its subjects did religiously, but challenge their authority and down comes the hammer. Hard.
How did Jesus challenge Rome's authority? No one accused him of being the king of Rome, did they.

According to the New Testament, the Romans may have executed Jesus, but the Jews sentenced him. And not for sedition; they only accused him of sedition.
Simply leading all those followers is a show of strength, that's how. And starting a riot in the temple didn't help --- that's what he was arrested for. Cult followings are not known to be conducive with a competing authoritarian power who only recently took over the joint.

And I didn't say or imply Jesus passed himself on as "king of Rome" (which had emperors anyway); he was styled "King of the Jews", which is specific to a specific Roman colony; not the entire Roman Empire but a subset thereof. Why do you think he was so evasive with Pilate about that title? Because he knows how Rome views that, that's why. Everybody in that time and place knows.

Rome wasn't worried that Jesus was gonna take over Gaul, now where they. Have any idea how far the Roman Empire spread?
This is all just nonsense, of course. A cacophonous string of words that say nothing.

Pilate didn't know what offense Jesus had committed. The Bible certainly says nothing about a "riot" in the temple, as if Roman authorities cared about the goings on in the Jewish temple, anyway.

And Rome had no law against anyone developing a following, or against anyone claiming royalty in a religious sect.
 
Last edited:

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
122,646
Reaction score
22,121
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Jesus was executed by Rome for treason.
How did Jesus betray Rome?
I didn't say "betray" now did I. "Betray" implies a relationship of trust broken.

Rome was the empire. Judea was under its thumb for three hundred years. When Jesus (or anyone else) amassed legions of 'followers' declaring "King of the Jews" or similar position within one of its colonies, that got Rome's attention wid a quickness. Rome didn't give a shit what its subjects did religiously, but challenge their authority and down comes the hammer. Hard.
How did Jesus challenge Rome's authority? No one accused him of being the king of Rome, did they.

According to the New Testament, the Romans may have executed Jesus, but the Jews sentenced him. And not for sedition; they only accused him of sedition.
Simply leading all those followers is a show of strength, that's how. And starting a riot in the temple didn't help --- that's what he was arrested for. Cult followings are not known to be conducive with a competing authoritarian power who only recently took over the joint.

And I didn't say or imply Jesus passed himself on as "king of Rome" (which had emperors anyway); he was styled "King of the Jews", which is specific to a specific Roman colony; not the entire Roman Empire but a subset thereof. Why do you think he was so evasive with Pilate about that title? Because he knows how Rome views that, that's why. Everybody in that time and place knows.

Rome wasn't worried that Jesus was gonna take over Gaul, now where they. Have any idea how far the Roman Empire spread?
This is all just nonsense, of course.

Pilate didn't know what offense Jesus had committed. The Bible certainly says nothing about a "riot" in the temple, as if Roman authorities cared about the goings on in the Jewish temple, anyway.

And Rome had no law against anyone developing a following, or against anyone claiming royalty in a religious sect.
Last bit first, Rome was a heavyhanded authoritarian state --- it didn't need "laws" to squash upstart populists, which it did via crucifixion. And whether such upstart claimed royalty or not was irrelevant; the fact that such upstart had a following ---- and therefore POWER ---- was what got Rome's attention. Rome wasn't keen on sharing power.

As far as the riot, it's dressed up as "moneychangers". A riot means chaos on the streets, and chaos means anarchy, and anarchy means losing POWER.

(/offtopic)
 

norwegen

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
9,199
Reaction score
4,049
Points
390
Location
Ormond Beach, FL
Jesus was executed by Rome for treason.
How did Jesus betray Rome?
I didn't say "betray" now did I. "Betray" implies a relationship of trust broken.

Rome was the empire. Judea was under its thumb for three hundred years. When Jesus (or anyone else) amassed legions of 'followers' declaring "King of the Jews" or similar position within one of its colonies, that got Rome's attention wid a quickness. Rome didn't give a shit what its subjects did religiously, but challenge their authority and down comes the hammer. Hard.
How did Jesus challenge Rome's authority? No one accused him of being the king of Rome, did they.

According to the New Testament, the Romans may have executed Jesus, but the Jews sentenced him. And not for sedition; they only accused him of sedition.
Simply leading all those followers is a show of strength, that's how. And starting a riot in the temple didn't help --- that's what he was arrested for. Cult followings are not known to be conducive with a competing authoritarian power who only recently took over the joint.

And I didn't say or imply Jesus passed himself on as "king of Rome" (which had emperors anyway); he was styled "King of the Jews", which is specific to a specific Roman colony; not the entire Roman Empire but a subset thereof. Why do you think he was so evasive with Pilate about that title? Because he knows how Rome views that, that's why. Everybody in that time and place knows.

Rome wasn't worried that Jesus was gonna take over Gaul, now where they. Have any idea how far the Roman Empire spread?
This is all just nonsense, of course.

Pilate didn't know what offense Jesus had committed. The Bible certainly says nothing about a "riot" in the temple, as if Roman authorities cared about the goings on in the Jewish temple, anyway.

And Rome had no law against anyone developing a following, or against anyone claiming royalty in a religious sect.
Last bit first, Rome was a heavyhanded authoritarian state --- it didn't need "laws" to squash upstart populists, which it did via crucifixion. And whether such upstart claimed royalty or not was irrelevant; the fact that such upstart had a following ---- and therefore POWER ---- was what got Rome's attention. Rome wasn't keen on sharing power.

As far as the riot, it's dressed up as "moneychangers". A riot means chaos on the streets, and chaos means anarchy, and anarchy means losing POWER.

(/offtopic)
Still the same nonsense.

Show us in the Bible where Rome arrested Jesus for treason, and what Jesus did under Rome's laws that constituted treason.

Please try to add some substance to your answer.
 

Meriweather

Not all who wander are lost
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
6,829
Reaction score
866
Points
165
This is all just nonsense, of course.

Pilate didn't know what offense Jesus had committed. The Bible certainly says nothing about a "riot" in the temple, as if Roman authorities cared about the goings on in the Jewish temple, anyway.

And Rome had no law against anyone developing a following, or against anyone claiming royalty in a religious sect.
I would not call it nonsense. It is possible the Bible doesn't record the entire events of that time. There are a few things that were recorded that don't make immediate sense to us. People have come up with theories. Facts:

There was always an insurrection brewing against Rome.
Jesus was an irritant to Jewish Temple Authorities.
The Sanhedrin does not interrupt a Passover celebration to hold a trial.
The comment that better one man die...indicating the authorities thought Jerusalem was in imminent danger from Rome.
There appeared to be two Jesus (or Yeshuas). One called himself the Son of the Father (Bar Abba); the other might have been known as the Son of one of the Priests (Bar Abbas).
Jesus had caused a kerfuffle in the Temple.

We can imagine the Sanhedrin meeting if there was a danger that if the son of a high priest had been arrested for insurrection, Rome might punish everyone associated with the Temple, killing many. What if Bar Rabbas had been arrested and the Temple authorities convinced Pilate he had the wrong man, that Pilate wanted that guy Jesus who called himself Bar Abba, and had been overturning tables in the Temple. In this way the Jews in authority would save themselves while at the same time get rid of the guy who was telling people sins ARE forgiven (even before they offer a Temple sacrifice). Remember, other than the Bible there is no hint that one criminal was released during Passover or any time. It is more likely that Pilate was convinced (or let himself be convinced) he had the wrong man. The two men crucified with Jesus knew he was not the one involved with their insurrection.

I am not saying the above is true--just one of many theories that weave a plausible explanation for some the implausibilities found in the Gospel passion accounts.
 

norwegen

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
9,199
Reaction score
4,049
Points
390
Location
Ormond Beach, FL
This is all just nonsense, of course.

Pilate didn't know what offense Jesus had committed. The Bible certainly says nothing about a "riot" in the temple, as if Roman authorities cared about the goings on in the Jewish temple, anyway.

And Rome had no law against anyone developing a following, or against anyone claiming royalty in a religious sect.
I would not call it nonsense. It is possible the Bible doesn't record the entire events of that time. There are a few things that were recorded that don't make immediate sense to us. People have come up with theories. Facts:

There was always an insurrection brewing against Rome.
Jesus was an irritant to Jewish Temple Authorities.
The Sanhedrin does not interrupt a Passover celebration to hold a trial.
The comment that better one man die...indicating the authorities thought Jerusalem was in imminent danger from Rome.
There appeared to be two Jesus (or Yeshuas). One called himself the Son of the Father (Bar Abba); the other might have been known as the Son of one of the Priests (Bar Abbas).
Jesus had caused a kerfuffle in the Temple.

We can imagine the Sanhedrin meeting if there was a danger that if the son of a high priest had been arrested for insurrection, Rome might punish everyone associated with the Temple, killing many. What if Bar Rabbas had been arrested and the Temple authorities convinced Pilate he had the wrong man, that Pilate wanted that guy Jesus who called himself Bar Abba, and had been overturning tables in the Temple. In this way the Jews in authority would save themselves while at the same time get rid of the guy who was telling people sins ARE forgiven (even before they offer a Temple sacrifice). Remember, other than the Bible there is no hint that one criminal was released during Passover or any time. It is more likely that Pilate was convinced (or let himself be convinced) he had the wrong man. The two men crucified with Jesus knew he was not the one involved with their insurrection.
Just because the Bible doesn't document everything that happened with Jesus, doesn't mean we can infer anything without any basis. "Making stuff up" about the Bible is what invites derision on evangelical Christians.

Jesus wasn't the one starting an insurrection with Rome (except maybe insofar as he recruited a Zealot to join his company (Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13)). He didn't displease the Roman authorities; he displeased the Jewish authorities.

Nothing in the Bible says Jesus started a riot or a "kerfuffle" in the temple. He drove out the merchants and began teaching. That's what the Bible says. His teaching is what the Jewish authorities took issue with.

Okay, maybe that could be a kerfuffle.

I am not saying the above is true--just one of many theories that weave a plausible explanation for some the implausibilities found in the Gospel passion accounts.
Do Christians not consider the Bible the revealed Word of God?
 
Last edited:

justinacolmena

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Messages
5,705
Reaction score
1,769
Points
210
Location
alaska, usa
For centuries they taught that Jews were Christ murders, and that they lost their inheritance to the new covenant the Catholic church. Now they dont teach this anymore. They now teach that Jews are God's choosen people.
People who claim to be so chosen, special, elect, etc. can only expect to be persecuted as the earliest Christians were, even more so that the Jews of the time.

I'm starting to understand why you Germans (my grandmother was mostly German) were so pissed off with the Jews back in the 1930s — and that was, at least in the U.S. at the time, one of the consequences of the doctoring craze that had begun to take root in Al Capone's heyday of opium peddling and Mob rule under unwritten codes of omertà and gentlemanly respect for the ladies.

And my grandfather sometimes expressed the opinion that we shouldn't have fought that particular war from a U.S. standpoint or maybe we were on the wrong side of it.

And the Jews are up to their same old dirty tricks again full of shit in a court of law in a Christian church on Sunday to boot. And if you're a guy and you're new to that church, there's some lady or another— you don't even know her or who she is, but she's definitely pressing charges, she has a D.A. and a judge lined up to back her side of the story, and witnesses who “come forward” on cue after the manner of the Communist Party.
 

norwegen

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
9,199
Reaction score
4,049
Points
390
Location
Ormond Beach, FL
My thoughts

If the covenant with the jews never ended does God still work through the chosen people will they built the temple will the 12 tribes of Israel be resurrected will the Jewish messiah arrive? To me that sounds like the Christian zionists who finance Israel I was of the opinion the church teaches that God Jesus Christ fullfill the Jewish covenant the law that Jews no longer play this salvation role that now we are saved by grace not circumcision can someone explain
According to Christian theology, God's covenant with the Jews did end. The Christians are the chosen now; they're the ones with the missionary impulses, who bear God's image in the world.

The new temple is built (1 Pt 2:5). Standing in the midst of the kingdom is the church, the temple made of living stones.

Why would the twelve tribes be resurrected? That age came to an end. The New Testament is all about the end of the Temple Age.

Jesus did fulfill the Law. He did what the Law of Moses couldn't do: he defeated the curse of Adam; he defeated sin and death. Christians abide a new law now; to love God and to love others (of course they still abide the "elementary principles of the world"; they're still human, after all).
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top