[P-Marlowe]

But Paul in Galatians has already told us who Abraham's seed are, to whom these promises are made, and he mentions not a word about restoration to Palestine, but builds it all on the nature of the Church. He maintains, as we have shown, that the Church is the lawful continuation of Old Testament Israel and the inheritor of the Abrahamic covenant and promises.

Thus it follows that either the Jews were NEVER under the Law or that Christians are STILL under the law. Since the author contends that all things remain the same, I'd suggest that you put down that bacon cheeseburger and start being a Sabbath Observer.

If the Church has inherited the covenants of Abraham, then we must keep the law as many, if not most, of the covenants were conditional upon keeping the law.

BTW Paul never mentioned anything about the restoration of "Palestine," probably because Palestine has never existed (at least not as a country). This guy literally refuses to acknowledge that Israel exists as a nation. He refers to the Jewish presence in "Palestine" as an "occupation."

Do I detect a bit of anti-Jewish or anti-Semetic leanings in his writing? IMO this is where replacement theology leads. It is not only unbiblical, it is, IMO, a highway to hell.

[SmartCitizen]

Do I detect a bit of anti-Jewish or anti-Semetic leanings in his writing? IMO this is where replacement theology leads. It is not only unbiblical, it is, IMO, a highway to hell.

Yes, you do. I do as well. It's revolting.

[xzins]

He refers to the Jewish presence in "Palestine" as an "occupation."

Wow! Excellent catch, P-M.

My eye glided right over that without noticing it.

This guy is an anti-semitic, pro-Palestinian. And the replace folks say there's no truth to the claim that no one of their number are anti-Israel.

[Frumanchu]

Thus it follows that either the Jews were NEVER under the Law or that Christians are STILL under the law.

Name me one Jew (Christ notwithstanding) who was justified by the Law.

If the Church has inherited the covenants of Abraham, then we must keep the law as many, if not most, of the covenants were conditional upon keeping the law.

Why? None of the Jews kept the Law. They all failed miserably, every last one of them. Since none of Israel has kept the Law, I guess none of Abraham's descendants have much to look forward to when it comes to the covenant promises, huh?

Do I detect a bit of anti-Jewish or anti-Semetic leanings in his writing? IMO this is where replacement theology leads. It is not only unbiblical, it is, IMO, a highway to hell.

Here we go again. The AC-DC defense...