Zobel said:

---

Haha, no, because it's not. No one is replacing anyone. Grafting a branch into a tree does not replace the tree. You don't understand, and that's ok.

---

Buddy, you can justify it all you want, but it's by definition supersessionism. You're claiming that you are now the "real" Israel and the Jews are false. That the Jewish tradition is not valid unless it aligns with your theology. You're assuming the tree of Abraham for yourself and cutting out a the children of Abraham who don't follow you.

You've repeatedly espoused supersessionist theology and claimed to be the true Israel. You can try to weasel away from it however much you want, but your entire approach to Judaism is supersessionist. Unless you're now claiming that modern Jews are the true Israel and Judaism is a valid covenant. But if you're claiming that the real tree is only that which accepts Christianity and any Jews who do not are not Israel, then you're supersessionist.

Zobel said:

---

ive never espoused supresessionist theology, so i don't need to weasel away form anything.

everything you're saying is wrong, except for the fact that gentiles are a part of Israel.

was Paul of Tarsus a supresessionist?

---

You've espoused it throughout your discussions of Jews and Judaism. And yeah, a number of scholars and early Christian writers (including Justin Martyr and Iraneus) have claimed Paul was a suoersessionist or used his claims to advance blatant supersessionism.

Don't worry, Bustup, I know exactly who and what you believe.

I haven't. You didn't understand what I was saying then either.

I didnt ask what some scholars said or for your opinion on St Irenaus. I asked you. Was he or not?

Zobel said:

---

I haven't. You didn't understand what I was saying then either.

I didnt ask what some scholars said or for your opinion on St Irenaus. I asked you. Was he or not?

---

I don't think he was initially. I think as it became clearer that the world wasn't going to end in a few years he became one and as his church became predominately non-Jewish, the theology became explicitly supersessionist.

Over against his own teaching. Makes sense.

Zobel said:

---

Over against his own teaching. Makes sense.

---

You've never seen someone's arguments and opinions evolve over time and in the face of new evidence? Interesting.

You'd have to show where he contradicted himself. He never repudiates that the calling and election are irrevocable. And there is never anything about replacement in his writings. I am whatever St Paul is, and I don't really care what you label it, because you are unwilling or unable to engage with what the actual claims are. You prefer to think I and St Paul are antisemitic.