I thought I might comment on this. The origins of Replacement Theology are "Pauline," but I don't believe Paul was the one who created or invented Replacement Theology. What Paul proposed was Olive Tree Theology. It was the Later Christians who created Replacement Theology, which I think is really a misinterpretation of Paul's Olive Tree Theology. When Paul proposed this theology, the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem was still standing. The Sanhedrin was still functioning and Jerusalem was the centre of both Judaism and the newly-emerging "Christianity." The Christianity that existed there was different once again to what we have now, considering that the Jerusalem Church was still around. The absence of the Jerusalem Church was what led to Replacement Theology. The Jerusalem Church represented the "Christianity" that we lost. Replacement Theology suggests that the Mosaic Covenant was somehow transferred to Gentile Christians, that "Jewishness" wasn't strictly about what Judaism represents today. The Jerusalem Church was never around to approve of such an idea, due to the destruction of Jerusalem. What Paul says in Romans 10:12 and Galatians 3:28 about "no difference between Jew and Gentile" is misleading. He is right that Jews and Gentiles are fundamentally equal, but that doesn't mean that Gentiles can suddenly start defining "Jewishness." Jews grew up with the Torah. Gentiles grew up with something else. The Torah makes you Jewish. The Gospel makes you Christian. The Jerusalem Church still saw themselves as different to Gentile Christians. This is what led to the Apostolic Decree (similar to the Seven Noahide Laws). Even Paul saw Jews and Gentiles as different. In Romans 11:20 he says to the Gentiles, "do not be arrogant, but be afraid" because in verse 18 he says "you do not support the root, but the root supports you." In Romans 11:24 he calls Judaism the "cultivated olive tree." The branches that broke off (Romans 11:17-24) are not the Pharisees, but the Nazarenes who broke away from mainstream Judaism. The cultivated olive tree always has to have roots and because the Nazarenes/Jerusalem Church were destroyed, there was nobody left to be the roots but the Pharisees. The "roots" are not the Gospel as Replacement Theology assumes, but rather the Torah and the rabbinical tradition that the Pharisees established shortly after. Because Christians are still part of the wild olive tree, it also means we have yet to be grafted into the cultivated olive tree. To be grafted into the cultivated olive tree we may indeed need to accept and conform to rabbinical tradition (the roots). It is actually quite scary, to think that we need to look to another tradition to make meaning of our own .......... the even bigger problem is getting all 2.2 billion Christians to take part in this process of being grafted onto the other tree.