I will answer in two ways:
1) The context of the original comment was asserting that the Church was founded in the 4th century. That is historically incorrect. Whether you believe St Ignatius was a false teacher or not is your opinion, but that quote clearly demonstrates that there were Christians who believed that the Church existed as early as the turn of the first century. Again, you may not accept that is the true Church, but it unequivocally shows that Constantine or whoever did not create it hundreds of years later.
2) Without using extra-Biblical sources how does one even determine what constitutes the Bible? Does any book in the Bible tell you which books constitute the Bible? When St Paul talks about Scripture is he referring to the NT books? If so, how could have been referring to books not even written yet? Essentially, all of the other disagreements are downstream of this. If you cannot prove that the Bible itself says that the Bible is the only source of doctrine, and gives you a list of books which make up the Bible, then the belief in sola scriptura is self-defeating.
I feel that you are mistaking what replacement theology states. Replacement theology states that the Mosaic Law is no longer in force and the new and eternal covenant exists within the confines of the Church (you could extend this to a Protestant understanding of the Church being all believers for the purposes of this discussion). All a Jew has to do to not be "replaced" (lol) is accept the Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection of Our Lord and his divinity. Their "place" was not taken. It's still there and will be until they meet their eternal reward. But they can no longer live as if the Old Covenant was not fulfilled and expect to be in the same place their pre-Christ ancestors were in.
You are again placing your human limits of understanding upon the situation.
If a person had never heard of Jesus' sacrifice, but kept all of the commandments perfectly, believing the Creator would provide a way for them to be redeemed from death, you don't really think God would reject them do you?
What I'm trying to explain is that the same criteria exists for both time periods, before and after Christ. One looked forward and one looked back. That is all. The words being hears, spoken, or written does not change the qualifications of the person. Thank God for His mercy, that salvation is not dependent upon flawed, human reasoning and judgment.
Unfortunately they may have a sincere belief in this, but it is incoherent and misguided. You cannot perform Jewish rituals (which all point to the coming of the Messiah) after the Messiah has already come. It's blasphemous at worst and completely nonsensical at best.
Then you and your religion condemns Paul for blasphemy, the very person you would quote to support your doctrine.
If there is neither Jew nor Greek in the Kingdom of Heaven, how does that comport with maintaining rituals and beliefs that existed in a time when their was a difference between Jew and Greek. It's an explicit acceptance of Christ with the implicit rejection of him happening at the same time.
I said nothing of Jewish rituals. You are bringing rituals into it. I spoke of commandments.
You are also confusing "within the body" and "outside the body" of faithful believers by using the "kingdom of heaven" here.
In this world there are still those physical descendants of Jacob and those that are not. To disagree is disingenuous or wrong. Within the body there has never been a distinction between Gentiles and Israelites. Once they were part of the nation the distinction vanished. Unfortunately, the wall of partition between new believers and Judeans was created after the Babylonian exile and cemented in the mistranslation of the Mosaic texts to appease the Greeks and to keep gentile believers from obtaining an inheritance in the land. They even excluded descendants of Isaac and Jacob from the community in that time, calling other descendants of Jacob gentile.
Again, just recently learned stuff from my studies of the Bible and history, so I'm not going to go into it further, as I'm still learning.
Well, in the case of Daniel, the Temple was still to be rebuilt without the Messiah having come.
This is just a semantics argument. The temple did not exist for Daniel anymore than it exists for you and me. It couldn't be rebuilt now just as it couldnt be rebuilt then. Not without permission of people and God.
So while he himself could not fulfill the entirety of the Law, it was not impossible for Jews to do so.
You need to make up your mind. Either it is or is not possible to fulfill. The Bible says it IS possible. Directly and irrefutably stated even before the temple existed. The lack of a temple structure does not prevent anyone from keeping the law completely. That's not using common sense. The law was not dependent on a building, just as righteousness is not.
There was no temple nor operating priesthood for Daniel to avail himself of, so you are saying he wasn't a righteous servant? Or is it simply that those things in the law which apply to the temple are making everyone unrighteous since it didn't exist? That's nonsense. Did it mean that they shouldn't keep the law they could keep, because the temple wasn't available? Again, nonsense.
I understand avoiding the difficult questions this brings up. That's what our flesh does. It shrinks away. It hides from truth that is inconvenient.
The law was given before the tabernacle or temple existed. They were dependent upon it, and not the other way around. The physical does not supercede the spiritual. The imperfect does not supercede the perfect. The Bible declares the law to be perfect, even as Jesus was perfect. The temple was not. Nor was the tabernacle. For if either had been, they would still be standing today.
As to Abraham and Enoch, simple, they were not under the same covenant which we are talking about. The covenant of Sinai is the basis for the OT religion. Prior to that God had given natural law precepts for the Patriarchs to follow. After Sinai, there were legal qualifications for being within Israel. Now that the Temple is gone, it tells us that God no longer wants that system for His people. Trying to force it into the modern context is rejecting God's providence
You're saying that everyone is not held to the same standard. Doesn't sound like God to me. Sounds like unequal weights and measures.
The promise of The Lamb was made for all mankind. Again, you are choosing semantics to support your position. Precepts/law/ legal/qualifications ... = rules. Semantics. If you know of 5 rules and keep them, you are no less righteous than the one that knows of 150 and keeps them. Just because you know of only 5 doesn't mean there aren't 150....
According to the word, if you keep 2 perfectly then you would by default keep the rest. It doesn't
do away with the rest. That makes no logical sense whatsoever. That's the vicegerent form of thought (that of substitution). That's what led the Judeans that returned from Babylon to set up different rules/law in place of those simple instructions given to Moses.
I addressed the temple and the covenant more in another post. Please see those comments.
We won't agree while you place doctrine above the Word. If there is disagreement between your doctrine and the word, the doctrine is what must give way. If it speaks not according to the Word then there is no light in it. I'm OK with you choosing the words of men over the entire word of God. You have that right as all do to choose whom and what you will.
I pray you seek and find His words and not those opposed to it.
Edit- In case it wasn't clear in the other posts-
Judaism is not the same "religion" as the faith of those that kept the commandments of Moses. The religion of the Judeans was created post babylonian exile. They didn't keep the commandments as written but a substitute of sorts handed down to them by the rabbis. (Which should explain what Jesus said to them about them not keeping/believing "what Moses wrote" as he himself did.)
