Replies

And, of course, let's not forget that the most often-quoted and well-known verse about salvation, John 3:16, was spoken by Jesus to a Pharisaic Jew. The Son of God made sure it is absolutely clear that even the most devout Jew stands condemned before God and will perish if he doesn't believe in the Son:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (3:16)
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. (3:18)

Let me restate: this is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, speaking to Nicodemus, a Jew.

You were of course right some posts ago, when you said that your viewpoint on Christianity and mine, were poles apart and could not be reconciled...but I think you and I both agree that the other is nevertheless a Christian saved by grace, and these details can be discussed more fully in heaven.

However, for what audience we have, I must remind you that just as science has to make its theories agree with its observations, NOT ITS OBSERVATIONS BE FUDGED TO FIT ITS PRECONCEIVED THEORIES!--

even so does Christianity (if it were to be intellectually honest) have to make its theologies and theories agree with the facts, not squeeze the facts until somehow they are less embarrassing to the theology!

The fact is, that the prophecies of God's continuing love and concern and restoration and return of Israel have long been now, and are still daily being, fulfilled. You are clinging to theory, to the theory that the church replaced Israel, aka replacement theology, long after events themselves have shown your theory to be wrong.

I would like to remind you that 150 years ago, perhaps 1 or 2% of Christians in America held my view, and 98-99% your view. But many have been convinced, ie forced, ie mugged, by the facts to admit what they should have seen all along, from the prophecies and from the fact that the OLD COVENANT IS STILL IN FORCE; it never ceased to be! And now, I don't think there is any doubt that a majority of Christians agrees with me, certainly in America at the very least!

Therefore, when you make the New Covenant out to be something that would abrogate or invalidate the Old--ie is INCONSISTENT WITH IT--you are by definition wrong.

Any interpretation of the New Covenant that is in violation of, or would do violence to, the Old original covenant of God with Abraham and Moses, is by definition false and falls of its own weight, and in the very unlikely event that the "proof-texts" you give do mean what you say (surely they would have been Hitler's very favorite New Testament passages!)--then that would only show that the NT is itself flawed, and the authors of those passages were simply short-sighted, mistaken, giving their own rather sour personal opinions after some synagogue somewhere didn't give them the welcome they thought they deserved.