God isn’t finished with Israel yet!

[seanD]

You have that backwards. The gnostics abandoned the OT.

[eschaton]

You have that backwards. The gnostics abandoned the OT.

Marcion simply thought the OT God was a different god.

Marcion believed Jesus Christ was the savior sent by God, and Paul of Tarsus was his chief apostle, but he rejected the Hebrew Bible and the God of Israel. Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament. This belief was in some ways similar to Gnostic Christian theology; notably, both are dualistic, that is, they posit opposing gods, forces, or principles: one higher, spiritual, and "good", and the other lower, material, and "evil" (compare Manichaeism), in contrast to the orthodox Christian view that "evil" has no independent existence, but is a privation or lack of "good",[2] a view shared by the Jewish theologian Moses Maimonides.[3]

That was the teaching of Marcion, that the OT and NT were different Gods. That's why he rejected the OT. The orthodox Christan belief is that they're the same God, as you know. Divorcing the OT from the New seems the same in principle. That's why I asked you to study the way Calvin interpreted Jeremiah. He saw the book through the lens of the NT.

[seanD]

Marcion simply thought the OT God was a different god.

Marcion believed Jesus Christ was the savior sent by God, and Paul of Tarsus was his chief apostle, but he rejected the Hebrew Bible and the God of Israel. Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament. This belief was in some ways similar to Gnostic Christian theology; notably, both are dualistic, that is, they posit opposing gods, forces, or principles: one higher, spiritual, and "good", and the other lower, material, and "evil" (compare Manichaeism), in contrast to the orthodox Christian view that "evil" has no independent existence, but is a privation or lack of "good",[2] a view shared by the Jewish theologian Moses Maimonides.[3]

That was the teaching of Marcion, that the OT and NT were different Gods. That's why he rejected the OT. The orthodox Christan belief is that they're the same God, as you know. Divorcing the OT from the New seems the same in principle. That's why I asked you to study the way Calvin interpreted Jeremiah. He saw the book through the lens of the NT.

I still don't see the connection you're making to the ideas expressed in this thread and gnosticism.

[eschaton]

I still don't see the connection you're making to the ideas expressed in this thread and gnosticism.

Marcion said that the god of the OT and the god of the NT were two different gods, thus he separated the Old and the New. Darbyism separates the promises and the peoples of god into two different promises and people. So to me that seems similar to Marcion.

[seanD]

Marcion said that the god of the OT and the god of the NT were two different gods, thus he separated the Old and the New. Darbyism separates the promises and the peoples of god into two different promises and people. So to me that seems similar to Marcion.

I still don't see the association you're making. If anything, this would be closer to those who deny the literalism of the Abrahamic promises because they have to assume the promises switched from literal to spiritual or that the literal was nullified by the spiritual -- something that the gnostics would latch onto. My argument is that the promises of the OT were never abandoned but are the same (everlasting) only with a spiritual element (the better element) added.

[eschaton]

I still don't see the association you're making. If anything, this would be closer to those who deny the literalism of the Abrahamic promises because they have to assume the promises switched from literal to spiritual or that the literal was nullified by the spiritual -- something that the gnostics would latch onto. My argument is that the promises of the OT were never abandoned but are the same (everlasting) only with a spiritual element (the better element) added.

Switching from literal to spiritual? Did you read Calvin's commentary on Jeremiah? You don't have to read the whole commentary, but you can if you wish. Focus on the test verses given earlier. There is no "switching" in the Christian view. The promises have always been to the church in reality. That's the way it was always understood by the orthodox until Darbyism, or maybe shortly before. If you're arguing the OT promises are literally for national Israel then you agree with Darby, although I'm not sure exactly what you mean with your last sentence. Sure the Jews can be saved in the end time. All they have to do is accept Christ as their Savior.

[seanD]

Switching from literal to spiritual? Did you read Calvin's commentary on Jeremiah? You don't have to read the whole commentary, but you can if you wish. Focus on the test verses given earlier. There is no "switching" in the Christian view. The promises have always been to the church in reality. That's the way it was always understood by the orthodox until Darbyism, or maybe shortly before. If you're arguing the OT promises are literally for national Israel then you agree with Darby, although I'm not sure exactly what you mean with your last sentence. Sure the Jews can be saved in the end time. All they have to do is accept Christ as their Savior.

Maybe I'm just confused by what you meant in post#45. You were sort of all over the map with what you said, especially about Marcion.

[eschaton]

Maybe I'm just confused by what you meant in post#45. You were sort of all over the map with what you said, especially about Marcion.

Sorry if I confused you. I just mean that interpretations that don't show the relation between the OT and NT are similar to what Marcion taught.