#dual-covenant theology

[gay-jewish-bucky]

Hey Christians who want to be allies to Jews, please don't talk about G-d in the 'Old Testament' as bad/cruel/evil and G-d in the 'New Testament' as much better/kinder/more loving, that's a form of supersessionism (replacement theology)

[apilgrimpassingby]

Yes, the "Jesus was Palestinian" stuff is dumb and people should stop saying it. I'll grant you that much.

What I do not grant is that the Jews are eternally or unconditionally God's people. Christ told their leaders that "your house is left to you desolate" (Matthew 23:38) and that "the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits" (Matthew 21:43). In the Old Testament, God told Israel that "you are not My people, and I am not your God" (Hosea 1:9) and that "I have forsaken My house; I have abandoned My heritage" (Jeremiah 12:7). Lamentations seriously countenances that God "ha[s] utterly rejected us, and ... remain[s] exceedingly angry with us" (Lamentations 5:22). Deuteronomy 28:15-68 is a very long, very graphic passage describing curses upon Israel if they disobey God, including being given over to foreign gods (v.36) and returned to Egypt (v.68). St. Paul tells us that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but keeping the commandments of God (1 Corinthians 7:18-19) and that Jews and Gentiles are unified in Christ (Ephesians 2:12-16).

Jesus was a Judean Jew, and that matters theologically. You can’t ignore how important that is for your own salvation just because it fills you with satisfaction to say he was a Palestinian Christian when He factually wasn’t.

[entanglingbriars]

I know Christianity has traditionally been supercessionist, i.e. the idea is that Jesus brought a new covenant that fully replaces the old covenant God made with the Jewish people and makes that one obsolete. But I don't see how that makes any sense. Aren't God's covenant with the Jews and Jesus' New Covenant doing fundamentally different things? Even Christian sources don't seem to think Jews ever believed the law of Moses saved them from Hell or original sin. So how can one replace the other?

I've wrestled with this for a few hours; there are a lot of ways to approach the question and I'm going to list a few. They should be seem as complementary rather than opposed.

In both Christians' and Jews' traditional understandings of God's covenant with Israel, getting a Messiah is a key component of that covenant. And the synoptic Gospels and Paul are very clear that Jesus is that Messiah. In rejecting Jesus, the Jews rejected their covenant with God. The covenant with Christians didn't necessarily supersede God's covenant with Israel, but in practice it did.

In the traditional reading of Romans (challenged by, among others, Paula Fredericksen), God has grafted gentiles onto the existing covenant with Israel. So it's less that the covenant with Israel has been replaced than that it's been expanded and the Jews have failed to realize this.

Atonement for sins via animal sacrifice is a key component of God's covenant with Israel. In that respect the covenant is about sin and redemption from sin. It also clearly can't apply anymore since the Temple has been destroyed. The destruction of the Temple--a punishment for Jews' rejection of Jesus--ended the possibility of the old covenant being able to redeem people from sin, leaving Jesus as the only option. (Jews have a very different approach to the nature of atonement for sin in the absence of the Temple.)

Supercessionism is overwhelmingly supported by theological tradition and history. If you aren't doing sola scriptura (and in practice, no one is), you can't really reject it on the grounds that a strict reading of the Scriptures doesn't support it unless you want to give serious ground to the antitrinitarians (among others).

While the two covenants confer different responsibilities and obligations on their parties, both firmly establish one group of people as God's Chosen people. Historically neither Christians nor Jews have really thought God could have two different Chosen peoples; it'd be like having two favorite sons: one's gotta be better. (Many modern Jewish theologies of election have moved away from this notion. Choseness to many Jews is not a matter of exclusion or favoritism, but this is not historically how Jews have viewed our election.)

Dual covenant theology is incoherent. By this I don't mean that the notion of two covenants with God is necessarily incoherent, but rather that the specific phenomenon of "dual covenant theology" is incoherent. As you correctly noted, God's covenant with Israel isn't salvation-centric, and dual covenant theology requires that salvation play as central a role in Israel's covenant as it does in Jesus'.

[lowkeynando]

believe both covenants are still applicable in a dual covenant theology. The Hebrew term Na beriyth for "covenant" is from a root with the sense of "cutting" because pacts or covenants were made by passing between cut pieces of flesh of an animal sacrifice. [1]

There are two major types of covenants in the Hebrew Bible, including the obligatory type and the promissory type. [2] The obligatory covenant is more common with the Hittite peoples, and deals with the relationship between two parties of equal standing. In contrast, the promissory type of covenant is seen in the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants. Promissory covenants focus on the relationship between the suzerain and the vassal and are similar to the "royal grant" type of legal document, which include historical introduction, border delineations, stipulations, witnesses, blessings, and curses. In royal grants, the master could reward a servant for being loyal. God rewarded Abraham, Noah, and David in his covenants with them. [3] As part of his covenant with Abraham, God has the obligation to keep Abraham's descendants as God's chosen people and be their God. God acts as the suzerain power and is the party of the covenant accompanied by the required action that comes with the oath whether it be fire or animals in the sacrificial oaths. In doing this, God is the party taking upon the curse if he does not uphold his obligation. Through historys CLONES

[rw7771]

Dual-covenant theology - Wikipedia

[alephskoteinos]

Having done a little further digging, I can't find any trace of solar theology or even the question of God and the sun in much of Christian theology. Certainly nothing resembling what we see from Julian, Macrobius, Iamblichus, the Chaldean Oracles, the Derveni Papyrus, Orphism, the pre-Christian Stoics, Egyptian magic or polytheism etc.

The closest thing for medieval Christianity would be the sun and moon allegory, in which the authority of God and more specifically the authority of the Pope (as the earhtly representative of God's power) was the Sun, and secular authority was the moon because worldly or rather "secular" rulers were supposed to just reflect from God's power in the sense that they merely received authority at the whim of the Pope and (in theory) have no actual power of their own, like how the moon reflects the light of the sun and thus the "light" of the moon is actually just the reflected light of the sun. But it's just that: a political allegory which represented medieval Catholic ideology. It's not "solar theology" as such. It's a way of saying that, as far as the Catholic Church was concerned, the Pope is the real authority in the world and the secular authorities are just agents of the Papacy.

Jesus definitely was sometimes compared to the sun and afforded solar symbolism, was called the "Sun of Justice", and even preached as the "True Sun" by Christians to the Aztecs, though the colonial logic in that instance should be very obvious. But it could just be symbolic. Jesus was compared with the sun by Christians, and the Bible did call him "the Sun of the Resurrection", but this did not mean that Jesus is meant to be seen as a sun god, certainly not in the sense that it implies a divinity distinct from and alongside God (as in "bi-theism"), and since Jesus was never seen as a sun god, solar references are likely just meant to be metaphorical, which signifies the light of Jesus shining on the world and the believers. You can think of Jesus being called the morning star in the Book of Revelation in the same way: it simply signifies the idea that he's supposed to be the dawn, as in the dawn of a new covenant and a new kingdom. It's also really, really, really difficult to find anything about Jesus and solar theology that isn't just modern "astrotheology" bullshit or just generally dubious claims about how Christianity was simply plagiarised sun worship (a la The Zeitgeist Movie), and that's basically what a lot of the claims that Jesus was actually a sun god amount to.

I also think it's interesting how all the conservation about solar symbolism or comparison in Christianity that I can find centers around Jesus, and traditionally almost never around God himself. Jesus, the son of God, may have been compared to the sun but God, the father, is not. That to me is a curious detail. I suppose it makes sense from a historical standpoint. For one thing, the Christian God was never regarded as a sun god. In the context of Judaism and pre-Judaic polytheism, Yahweh or YHWH was almost never worshipped as a sun god at a point in the history of Judaism. I have seen instances of Iao being identified with Helios in both the Greek Magical Papyri and Roman theology, but then I would have to stress that this belief probably has nothing to do with either Judaism or Christianity.

So, in a way, that means solar theology represents an actual philosophical distinction from Christianity relevant to pre-Christian Greek, Roman, and Egyptian polytheism, though it seems to be arguably absent in other pre-Christian polytheistic religions. Still, I would argue it's enough to position solar theology as very much a form of pagan theology, to be distinguished from Christian theology. And its rammifications in pre-Christian antiquity suggest that the sun, when it was interpreted as a supreme divine principle, was taken as non-dual or monistic principle, representing either the underlying unity of the cosmos, the invisible principle of the cosmos and its manifestation, or a divine intellect that orders the cosmos in some way, not The One as such but proceeding from The One. The Sun in this solar theology also presents a unity of the sun with a kind of dark double, such as Hades, and places the sun in the domain of the visible and invisible and the living and the dead. Such a formula in these terms is not present in Christianity: pretty much no form of Christianity considers the Devil to be an aspect of God or identical to the nature of God.

I'm curious. By the "late pagan" periods of Rome, Greece, and Egypt you start seeing a lot monistic and even quasi-monotheistic solar theology in a lot of places, so did Christian theology adapt that by identifying God with the sun or did they make the sun subordinate to God?

I will say though that, in the Greek Magical Papyri, there are spells or prayers on the one hand in which Helios could be identified with Iao, or on the other hand spells or prayers where Sabaoth or one of the other forms of the God of Judaism is placed above Helios or the sun.

[theexodvs]

Judaism is a REACTION TO Christianity, not its source.

“My son, be careful to fulfill the words of the Sages even more than the words of the Torah…with respect to the words of the Sages, anyone who transgresses the words of the Sages is liable to receive the death penalty…”

-Eruvin 21b

“The [Babylonian Talmud] has formed the definitive statement of Judaism from the time of its closure (around 500 AD) to the present day.”

-Rabbi Jacob Neusner, The Sacred Chain: A History of the Jews, p. 112

“[The notion that Judaism is the religion of the Old Testament] is of course, a fallacious impression…[W]hoever would seek to compare the classic Jewish tradition with the biblical word of faith and life would find some startling contrasts. The Bible conceives of all Jewish worship as centered sanctuary in Jerusalem, where the service is to consist of animal sacrifices presided over by an order of hereditary functionaries, priests, and Levites. The Bible knows nothing of the synagogue, of prayer service, of the office of the rabbi, of a festival like Hannukah. Much of what exists in Judaism is absent in the Bible, and much of what is in the Bible cannot be found in Judaism.”

-Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser, Judaism and the Christian Predicament, p. 59

“witHout JUdaISm THerE wouLD Be No cHrISTianitY!”

-Philosemitic knuckleheads

[faithj0urneys]

welcome!

hi! you can call me grace :)

this is my side blog where i’ll be documenting my journey towards God, venting my thoughts, talking about new experiences i have, and just generally posting anything relating to my new relationship with God and my journey towards feeling comfortable with faith.

read more about my journey and my goals for this blog under the cut!

I was born and baptized as a Lutheran, but as I grew up, I became increasingly distant from the Lutheran church and religion as a whole. around the age of 12 I had my first crisis of faith and found myself feeling totally lost and alienated from Christianity (and disillusioned by all religion, honestly). by 17, I discovered a love for Judaism and the Jewish people, and by 20, I formally converted to Reform Judaism. but at 22, I had another crisis of faith and began exploring Christianity again. It was very sudden and unexpected; I needed to spend time exploring this feeling. I am now working through my feelings about this — trying to reconcile my overwhelming guilt about potentially leaving Judaism with my continuing love and admiration for it and the Jewish people, all while trying to follow what my heart is pulling me to do.

Since I fundamentally believe and have always believed we all are worshipping the same God, I’m currently at a place where I am trying not to attach myself too hard to any one label while I take this time to explore; I simply want to forge a relationship with God, in whatever form it may take, in the way that feels the most natural to me.

As such, this blog is absolutely NOT a welcome space for antisemites, or anyone who believes that good, righteous, god-loving people of any faith are going to hell. Similarly, this is NOT the place for you if you're going to praise me for leaving Judaism. (I believe in dual covenant theology, so frankly I believe the Jews — as long as they are good people who carry out God’s will — will see heaven regardless of belief in Jesus.)

I am ultimately pro-choice. It’s not a black and white issue for me, there’s a lot of nuance here — but at the end of the day, I do consider myself pro-choice. This is not up for debate.

I’d be happy to answer any questions that are asked in good faith, but I am not open to engaging in lengthy or aggressive debate. My faith journey is not open to debate, no matter how scandalous or sacrilegious it might seem to anyone — it’s my journey alone and ultimately it is between me and God.

[catie-does-things]

Are you saying that a gay person is allowed to feel attraction, but acting on it and being in a gay relationship goes against "authentic human flourishing"? That the healthy choice is to be celibate like Eve Tushnet? Does a trans person choosing to transition go against "authentic human flourishing"? Or do you mean the opposite, since living our reality is authentic? For all my interest in theology, sometimes we'd just like a straightforward answer on how you see us.

It’s hard to give a straightforward answer, since I disagree with so many of the premises embedded in those questions.

For example, the idea that acting on sexual attraction is “living our reality” and therefore authentic - I don’t think this is true for any type of sexual attraction. Authentic living (that is, living in accordance with God’s plan, which is what we were made for as human beings) can not be based in seeking to fulfill our own desires, because everyone’s desires have been corrupted by original sin. We all want things that aren’t actually good for us.

I’m also not sure what you mean by asking how I see you. You, specifically, are an anonymous person on the internet to me - I do not know you at all and therefore have no opinion of you. And the larger groups of “people who experience same-sex attraction” or “people who call themselves LGBT” are so large and diverse that the same applies. And as I see it, it’s not my opinion that really matters here, but the teaching of the Church, to which I, as a Catholic, am bound to submit myself.

What the Church teaches about human sexuality (and remember, when she uses that term, she means maleness and femaleness, not “sexual orientation”, which is a concept that did not exist prior to the 19th century) is that God made man and woman in his image as complementary partners, with their conjugal union serving the dual purpose of the unity of the spouses as one flesh in marriage and the procreation of children, both of which are ways of participating in God’s own life-giving love for us. Any sexual activity that is not ordered towards the fullness of this purpose is thus not in accordance with how God made us to live.

On the question of “gender identity” (which, like “sexual orientation”, is a recently invented concept that the Church does not really use), the teaching is largely the same: Each of us is still created, male or female, in God’s image, as an integral unity of body and soul. Whatever dissatisfaction we may experience with our bodies or the gender expectations of our particular culture does not change the fact of how we were made, nor the fact that our bodily maleness or femaleness is good in the eyes of God. That is the truth that we must live.

In terms of sexual relationships, the options for all Catholics really fall into the same two categories, regardless of what type of sexual desires we may or may not feel - marriage as understood above, or some form of celibacy. Both of those things are good in God’s eyes, but it’s important to remember that the Christ tells us that celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom is a higher state in life than marriage, because there is no earthly marriage in heaven, and therefore those who live an intentional celibate life prefigure the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. The vocation to celibacy is not a denial of human sexuality, but a full commitment of one’s person here and now to the heavenly marriage covenant between Christ as the Bridegroom and his Church as the Bride.

But whether married or celibate, all of us will at some point experience some type of desire (sexual or otherwise) to do something that would be sinful. But these desires themselves are not sinful, to the extent that they are not freely chosen or indulged. Nothing beyond your control can be a sin - but how we choose to act on our feelings and desires is always within our control. Again, I want to reiterate that this is not limited to same-sex attraction or even to sexual attraction broadly speaking, but is true of all desires, none of which define who we are.

So, in a very real sense, we can say that how the Church sees people who experience same-sex attraction (or LGBT people, if you prefer) is: no differently from anyone else.

I am not trying to obfuscate with these long answers, and I really do hope they make things at least a little more clear. But as I said, the present cultural norms and assumptions about what it means to be human in general and sexuality in particular are so out of step with the Church’s teachings that simple “yes to this and no to that” answers end up being misleading. And my personal opinions can not be separated from the teachings of the Church, because I believe that the Catholic Church has the fullness of God’s revealed truth on these and all matters.

To whit, some more references, because I am a teacher and always have to provide opportunities to learn more:

Celibacy for the Kingdom and the Fulfillment of Human Sexuality

Marriage in God’s Plan (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1602-1620)

Passions in the Moral Life (CCC 1767-1770)

The Vocation to Chastity (CCC 2337-2359)

[sharktoothjack]

I didn't say it was fair, I said it was mainstream Christian theology (as I understand it.) It certainly doesn't seem fair. In fact, most Christians I know don't really feel fully satisfied with any of the example views I offered. I'm not particularly familiar with medieval or pre-Reformation Catholicism (and even less of the (Eastern) Orthodox Church) so I really couldn't say what context Dante might have been responding to.

I was not aware of the Ecclesia and Synagoga art - it is striking indeed. The wiki page indicates that the pair symbolizes Supersessionism, which the traditional view I was portraying above- the belief that Jewish people need to accept Jesus - although it's not the only Christian view.

The relationship between Judaism and Christianity is complicated. It's true that Christianity is built on top of Judaism, like you say, a large part of Jewish holy text is incorporated into the Christian Bible as the Old Testament. Furthermore, Christians see Jesus' teachings as an addition to/ transformation of Judaism. However, since then, we've had hundreds of years of diverging tradition as to how to interpret those holy texts, and also hundreds of years of antisemitic hostility, war, civil persecution, and bloodshed. Ecclesia has blood on her hands.

The idea you're talking about - and please forgive me if I'm misunderstanding - that Christians should view Jews who follow Judaism as equally religiously valid, is a minority view held by some Christians. (The wiki page suggests the term "dual-covenant theology".) It's controversial and far from the majority view, but it's not entirely incompatible with Christianity.

Also worth noting I'm only talking here about what Christian theology thinks about Jews and Judaism; I'm not at all qualified to say what Jewish theology thinks about Christians. The impression I get is mainly they'd like Christians to leave them alone

reading dante for the second time in my life and i have the same problems with him as i did when i was twelve, notably, why is virgil not able to go to heaven because the punishments of hell are supposed to fit sins and being born before Jesus is not a sin

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

  List of Heresies                                                

Adoptionism The belief Jesus is not eternally God but became God sometime after His birth

Antinomianism The belief that Christians are not bound by God’s law and are free to sin as they please; That Jesus' rescues from the guilt of sin but not its power..

Anti-Paulism The belief that the Apostle Paul was a heretic and that the books he wrote are not a part of Biblical Canon

Arianism The belief that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were lesser, created beings and  not persons of the Godhead .

Christian Deism The belief that God does not intervene in or interact with the world.

Docetism - The belief that Jesus was divine but only seemed to be human.

Donatism - The belief that the efficacy of the sacraments depends on character of the minister.

Dual Covenant Theology The belief that Jews can still be saved without believing in Jesus

Eutychianism - The belief that Jesus' finite human nature is swallowed up in His infinite divine nature.

Gay Theology - The belief that homosexuality is not a sin. Consequently, the full gospel of rescue from sin's tyranny is witheld from those who self-identify as "gay"

Gnosticism - Holds to a radical dualism of good and evil and believes secret knowledge is necessary for salvation. This contrasts sharply with Christianity which affirms the good of creation. Gnostics think matter is evil.

Inclusivism The belief that faith is not necessary for salvation and that God’s mercy is so wide that it embraces all non-Christian peoples on the earth

Kenosis The belief that Jesus ceased to be divine while on Earth

Kinism The belief that people are only to consort, worship, and marry people of their same race.  

Legalism - Trusting in one's own righteousness (or anything) aside from Jesus to win acceptance with God

Liberalism The belief that Scripture is not inerrant or infallible (Not to be confused with the political system of the same name)

Limited Theism The belief that God’s powers are or can be limited and He is not All-Powerful

Marcionism - The belief that the God of the O.T. is evil and the God of the N.T. is good. Affirms 11 books in the Canon

Macedonianism The belief that God the Holy Spirit is not a member of the Godhead but merely a creation of God.

Manichaeism The belief that good and evil are both equally powerful in ability and/or authority.

Modalism The belief that the members of the Trinity are not three distinct persons but three different aspects of the same person.

Monarchianism - The belief that God is one person.

Monophysitism - The belief that Jesus had only one nature: divine.

Montanism The belief that the Bible is either insufficient or incomplete, and that new revelation from God is being regularly given.

Moralistic Therapeutic Deism - the new American Religion.

Neo-Orthodoxy The belief that the Bible is not the Inspired Word of God unless it is being read by a believer.

Neoplatonism The belief that all existence consists of emanations from the One with whom the soul may be reunited

Nestorianism - The belief that Jesus was two persons.

Open Theism The belief that God is not omniscient and doesn’t know the future.

Papal Primacy The belief that the Pope is the head of the Church while it is on Earth as well as the vicar of Christ.

Partialism The belief that each member of the Trinity is 1/3 of God rather than being fully God.

Pelagianism The belief that human nature is untainted by the Fall of Man and is not corrupted with Original Sin.

Pluralism The belief that two or more religions can be true at one time.

Positive Thinking The belief that your thoughts have the God-like ability to create your reality.

Prosperity Gospel The belief that the promises of the Gospel include good physical health and Earthly wealth.

Progressive Christianity - a post-modern theological approach, a revisionist view of the Scriptures, with a strong focus on social justice and an over-emphasis on politics. Rooted in Liberal Christianity of the modern-era.

Rauschenbuschism (the social gospel) The belief that the main purpose of the Gospel is to be the cure for social issues rather than the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God.

Roman Catholicism - Roman Catholicism violates scripture in its doctrine of salvation, its claims about its authority, its apostolic succession, its priesthood, and its claim to have the sole right to interpret Scripture.

Semi-Pelagianism - The belief that man and God cooperate to achieve man's salvation.(with man initiating)

Socinianism - A Denial of the Trinity. The belief that Jesus is a deified man

Subordinationism - The belief that the Son is lesser than the Father in essence and or attributes.

Trinitarian Heresies Here is list of major heresies which deny the biblical teaching on the Trinity

Tritheism The belief that the Godhead is actually three separate gods

Universalism The belief that everyone will go to Heaven

Word of Faith The belief that human words have the God-like power to create or destroy.

Works Righteousness The belief that we are saved by works or a combination of faith and works rather than by faith alone

[coolksaposts]

List of Heresies

List of Heresies

Adoptionism The belief Jesus is not eternally God but became God sometime after His birth

Antinomianism The belief that Christians are not bound by God’s law and are free to sin as they please; That Jesus' rescues from the guilt of sin but not its power..

Anti-Paulism The belief that the Apostle Paul was a heretic and that the books he wrote are not a part of Biblical Canon

Arianism The belief that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were lesser, created beings and  not persons of the Godhead .

Christian Deism The belief that God does not intervene in or interact with the world.

Docetism - The belief that Jesus was divine but only seemed to be human.

Donatism - The belief that the efficacy of the sacraments depends on character of the minister.

Dual Covenant Theology The belief that Jews can still be saved without believing in Jesus

Eutychianism - The belief that Jesus' finite human nature is swallowed up in His infinite divine nature.

Gay Theology - The belief that homosexuality is not a sin. Consequently, the full gospel of rescue from sin's tyranny is witheld from those who self-identify as "gay"

Gnosticism - Holds to a radical dualism of good and evil and believes secret knowledge is necessary for salvation. This contrasts sharply with Christianity which affirms the good of creation. Gnostics think matter is evil.

Inclusivism The belief that faith is not necessary for salvation and that God’s mercy is so wide that it embraces all non-Christian peoples on the earth

Kenosis The belief that Jesus ceased to be divine while on Earth

Kinism The belief that people are only to consort, worship, and marry people of their same race.  

Legalism - Trusting in one's own righteousness (or anything) aside from Jesus to win acceptance with God

Liberalism The belief that Scripture is not inerrant or infallible (Not to be confused with the political system of the same name)

Limited Theism The belief that God’s powers are or can be limited and He is not All-Powerful

Marcionism - The belief that the God of the O.T. is evil and the God of the N.T. is good. Affirms 11 books in the Canon

Macedonianism The belief that God the Holy Spirit is not a member of the Godhead but merely a creation of God.

Manichaeism The belief that good and evil are both equally powerful in ability and/or authority.

Modalism The belief that the members of the Trinity are not three distinct persons but three different aspects of the same person.

Monarchianism - The belief that God is one person.

Monophysitism - The belief that Jesus had only one nature: divine.

Montanism The belief that the Bible is either insufficient or incomplete, and that new revelation from God is being regularly given.

Moralistic Therapeutic Deism - the new American Religion.

Neo-Orthodoxy The belief that the Bible is not the Inspired Word of God unless it is being read by a believer.

Neoplatonism The belief that all existence consists of emanations from the One with whom the soul may be reunited

Nestorianism - The belief that Jesus was two persons.

Open Theism The belief that God is not omniscient and doesn’t know the future.

Papal Primacy The belief that the Pope is the head of the Church while it is on Earth as well as the vicar of Christ.

Partialism The belief that each member of the Trinity is 1/3 of God rather than being fully God.

Pelagianism The belief that human nature is untainted by the Fall of Man and is not corrupted with Original Sin.

Pluralism The belief that two or more religions can be true at one time.

Positive Thinking The belief that your thoughts have the God-like ability to create your reality.

Prosperity Gospel The belief that the promises of the Gospel include good physical health and Earthly wealth.

Progressive Christianity - a post-modern theological approach, a revisionist view of the Scriptures, with a strong focus on social justice and an over-emphasis on politics. Rooted in Liberal Christianity of the modern-era.

Rauschenbuschism (the social gospel) The belief that the main purpose of the Gospel is to be the cure for social issues rather than the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God.

Roman Catholicism - Roman Catholicism violates scripture in its doctrine of salvation, its claims about its authority, its apostolic succession, its priesthood, and its claim to have the sole right to interpret Scripture.

Semi-Pelagianism - The belief that man and God cooperate to achieve man's salvation.(with man initiating)

Socinianism - A Denial of the Trinity. The belief that Jesus is a deified man

Subordinationism - The belief that the Son is lesser than the Father in essence and or attributes.

Trinitarian Heresies Here is list of major heresies which deny the biblical teaching on the Trinity

Tritheism The belief that the Godhead is actually three separate gods

Universalism The belief that everyone will go to Heaven

Word of Faith The belief that human words have the God-like power to create or destroy.

Works Righteousness The belief that we are saved by works or a combination of faith and works rather than by faith alone

-----

Related: Bad Theology - Cults and Heresy

Tue, 05/21/2019 - 18:05 -- john_hendryx

[hymnsofheresy]

dumb question probably but what do christians believe Jesus was doing in the Old Testament? since he existed from the beginning? Like is the God in the Hebrew Bible believed to be god the father or god the son or what?

I’m honestly not an expert on theology… so if anyone wants to make any corrections, please do so.

From my understanding, there are two main ways Christians go about interpreting the Hebrew Bible… and most of the time Christians tend to be somewhere in between these two strains of theology.

One way is a theology called “Supersessionism” that tries to use the Old Testament to prove that Jesus is a fulfillment to the Jewish religion. Typically, most of the “action” of the Hebrew Bible belongs to the Father. So the Exodus, the establishment of the Temples, and the prophets would be the Father’s doing. But Christ is sometimes placed within the text on occasion. So, for example, some Christians who follow the Supersessionist Theology may interpret the Angel that wrestled Jacob to be a pre-incarnation of Christ himself. These interpretations tend to disregard the Jewish context of the texts within the Tanakh. 

In recent years there has been a movement within Christianity to a more “Dual-covenant theology” where the covenant of Jewish people is understood as legitimate and can coexist with the Christian covenant. The Tanakh is studied in it’s Jewish context, and understood as a covenant to Jewish people. That is not to say it doesn’t apply to Christians or that it doesn’t establish aspects of Christian Theology. It just as understood as simply… different from the New Testament. 

[superbdonutpoetry]

Consider It All Dung

Arianism: Jesus is the Son of God, but is not fully divine as God the Father. Pelagianism: Mankind is untainted and hasn’t been corrupted by Adam’s fall (original sin). Antinomianism:  Christians are not bound by good works and are free to sin as they please. Anti-Paulism: Paul was a heretic and his epistles aren’t part of the Bible. Dual Covenant Theology: Jews can be saved today without…

[lowkeynando]

believe both covenants are still applicable in a dual covenant theology. The Hebrew term Na beriyth for "covenant" is from a root with the sense of "cutting" because pacts or covenants were made by passing between cut pieces of flesh of an animal sacrifice. [1]

There are two major types of covenants in the Hebrew Bible, including the obligatory type and the promissory type. [2] The obligatory covenant is more common with the Hittite peoples, and deals with the relationship between two parties of equal standing. In contrast, the promissory type of covenant is seen in the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants. Promissory covenants focus on the relationship between the suzerain and the vassal and are similar to the "royal grant" type of legal document, which include historical introduction, border delineations, stipulations, witnesses, blessings, and curses. In royal grants, the master could reward a servant for being loyal. God rewarded Abraham, Noah, and David in his covenants with them. [3] As part of his covenant with Abraham, God has the obligation to keep Abraham's descendants as God's chosen people and be their God. God acts as the suzerain power and is the party of the covenant accompanied by the required action that comes with the oath whether it be fire or animals in the sacrificial oaths. In doing this, God is the party taking upon the curse if he does not uphold his obligation. Through historys AND

[longsmart]

Alkitab bibel

"Hebrew" refers to the original language of the books, but it may also be taken as referring to the Jews of the Second Temple era and their descendants, who preserved the transmission of the Masoretic Text up to the present day. Lutheranism and Protestant denominations that follow the Westminster Confession of Faith accept the entire Jewish canon as the Old Testament without additions, although in translation they sometimes give preference to the Septuagint (LXX) rather than the Masoretic Text for example, see Isaiah 7:14. All of these formulations, except some forms of dual-covenant theology, are objectionable to mainstream Judaism and to many Jewish scholars and writers, for whom there is one eternal covenant between God and the Israelites, and who therefore reject the term "Old Testament" as a form of antinomianism.Ĭhristian usage of the "Old Testament" does not refer to a universally agreed upon set of books but, rather, varies depending on denomination. Modern Christian formulations of this tension include supersessionism, covenant theology, new covenant theology, dispensationalism, and dual-covenant theology. Ĭhristianity has long asserted a close relationship between the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, although there have sometimes been movements like Marcionism (viewed as heretical by the early church) that have struggled with it. Alister McGrath points out that while the term emphasizes that it is largely written in Hebrew and "is sacred to the Hebrew people", it "fails to do justice to the way in which Christianity sees an essential continuity between the Old and New Testaments", arguing that there is "no generally accepted alternative to the traditional term 'Old Testament'." However, he accepts that there is no reason why non-Christians should feel obliged to refer to these books as the Old Testament, "apart from custom of use". Hebrew Bible Old Testament" without prescribing the use of either. The Society of Biblical Literature's Handbook of Style, which is the standard for major academic journals like the Harvard Theological Review and conservative Protestant journals like the Bibliotheca Sacra and the Westminster Theological Journal, suggests that authors "be aware of the connotations of alternative expressions such as . Many biblical studies scholars advocate use of the term Hebrew Bible (or Hebrew Scriptures) as a substitute for less-neutral terms with Jewish or Christian connotations (e.g. See also: Biblia Hebraica (disambiguation) and Development of the Christian Biblical canon However, such an Urtext has never been found, and which of the three commonly known versions (Septuagint, Masoretic Text, Samaritan Pentateuch) is closest to the Urtext is debated. These differences have given rise to the theory that yet another text, an Urtext of the Hebrew Bible, once existed and is the source of the versions extant today. These sources may be older than the Masoretic Text in some cases and often differ from it. These include the Septuagint, the Syriac language Peshitta translation, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Dead Sea Scrolls collection and quotations from rabbinic manuscripts. In addition to the Masoretic Text, modern scholars seeking to understand the history of the Hebrew Bible use a range of sources. Catholic Bibles, Eastern / Greek Orthodox Bibles and Ethiopian Orthodox Bibles contain additional materials, derived from the Septuagint (texts translated into Koine Greek) and other sources. The contents of the Hebrew Bible are similar to those of the Protestant Christian Old Testament, in which the material is divided into 39 books and arranged in a different order. The authoritative form of the Hebrew Bible for Rabbinic Judaism is the Masoretic Text (7th to 10th century CE), which consists of 24 books, divided into pesuqim (verses). These texts are almost exclusively in Biblical Hebrew, with a few passages in Biblical Aramaic (in the books of Daniel and Ezra, and the verse Jeremiah 10:11). The Hebrew Bible or Tanakh ( / t ɑː ˈ n ɑː x/ Hebrew: תָּנָ״ךְ‎, pronounced or ), also known in Hebrew as Mikra ( / m iː ˈ k r ɑː/ Hebrew: מִקְרָא‎), is the canonical collection of Hebrew scriptures, including the Torah, the Nevi'im, and the Ketuvim.