Replacement Theology

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
HealthAndHappiness said:
When you look realistically, the bloodlines that Israel and Judah are supposedly so proud of are missing. It's not been proven by genealogical records that any man or woman can go back that far. After all, it's been 2,000 years and they refer to the Dispersion quite often .
At least with the American Indians, there are some records scattered about. That's to be expected in a 200 years period+/-.

Since the Dispersion, 2,000 years is 10X that.
I wouldn't be surprised if we all have a little Semite DNA in us.
The Bible says to not even give heed to genealogies. There's a lot of Pastors who insist on doing just the opposite.
A couple of my local friends follow big name pastors who have really driven into them the physical bloodline of the Non-Jew Abraham while teaching a DIFFERENT FAITH than that which Abraham had.

Do you see what I mean?
☕😎📖

Tim. 1:4Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

I'm glad we can discuss those things and still be friends. It is an emotional issue for some though.
Click to expand...
Elijah said " I am all that is left"

God said "I have reserved thousands that have not bowed the knee to baal."

You are guessing at a dynamic in the Jewish people....as did Elijah
 
Psalm1 said:
The 144k Jews are ETHNIC MESSIANIC JEWS.
Click to expand...

This idea that Israel is defined by ethnicity or race is a post-70 AD invention. It's not biblical. Membership in Israel under the law was always defined by circumcision, which was the seal of covenant membership. Being uncircumcised meant being cut off from Israel, and anyone in the world could become a child of Israel through circumcision. It was the nation-forming covenant.

Paul said circumcision is nothing, so there really is no such thing as anyone being the people of God through race, ethnicity or physical circumcision. Now the seal of the covenant is spiritual circumcision which is only received through faith.
 
God-fearing said:
Are you referring to end time reign?
Click to expand...

I am simply referring to the kingdom of Christ.
Jesus is the king of Israel in the line of David to this day.
He is also the seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:16), and the one who all the promises, including the land, were made to.
All Jesus disciples were Israelites, so there is no possibility of Him being guilty of replacing Israel.
Jesus has simply defined Israel in a different way from the way we have been taught to define it by modern "Israel".
Remember that the children of Israel were always a people, not a place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: God-fearing
Beekeeper said:
I am simply referring to the kingdom of Christ.
Jesus is the king of Israel in the line of David to this day.
He is also the seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:16), and the one who all the promises, including the land, were made to.
All Jesus disciples were Israelites, so there is no possibility of Him being guilty of replacing Israel.
Jesus has simply defined Israel in a different way from the way we have been taught to define it by modern "Israel".
Remember that the children of Israel were always a people, not a place.
Click to expand...
OT Israel was linked covenantally to the land. It was a symbol for the place Jesus prepares for us.
 
Gideon300 said:
None so blind...............
Have you heard of the first testament? It's also wrongly called the old testament. It's the only scriptures the early church had.

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." 2 Timothy 3:16

It is unwise to argue from silence. The first 40 books of the Bible include all that you need to know about Israel the nation and the people.

You don't even know that there has never been a Palestine as an independent nation or people. They are Arabs, descendants of Ishmael and so Israel's bitter enemy. The so-called Palestinian people is a construct out of thin air, courtesy of the terrorist Yasser Arafat.

Have you ever wondered why so-called Palestinians are refused entry into any other Muslim nation? Other Muslims are not that stupid. You have to be an ignorant Westerner to take them in. And even more ignorant to fund those terrorists.

The god of this world blinds the eyes of those who are perishing. What is even more tragic is the blindness of believers who refuse to accept God's word on the issue.
Click to expand...

Gideon,
We have already met here, and you already know that I have read the OT.
The focus here is Rom 9-11.
I think that my sources regarding the history and culture of Palestine are more reliable than yours, but what is the point of entering into it?
All that Israeli propaganda talk is not relevant, and only serves to muddy the waters.
All I have said here is that support for your political views (or mine for that matter) can not be found in Rom 9-11.
If you disagree with me that is ok, but please show me without running away from the chapters.
 
Cameron143 said:
OT Israel was linked covenantally to the land. It was a symbol for the place Jesus prepares for us.
Click to expand...

And it is through Jesus that "shall all families of the earth be blessed" Genesis 12:3.
It is also through Jesus that Abraham's seed shall be numbered like the dust of the earth. Genesis 13:16
 
Psalm1 said:
That is the new talking point of the replacement theology.

We have a new and better covenant.
The Jews regathered , are gathered via Jesus.
Nobody gets in outside Jesus.
The 144k Jews are ETHNIC MESSIANIC JEWS.
IT CLEARLY CLEARLY SAYS WHAT THEY ARE.
Your doctrine is way off.
That is why , under your doctrine you have no knowledge of Ruth, or Hosea.
Under your doctrine, God's message in Ruth and Hosea is MEANINGLESS.
Try and fit your doctrine in those 2 books.

They test fit those books OUTSIDE replacement theology.

You need so much changed.
1) Ruth
2) Hosea
3) the 144k
4) "firstfruits "
5) Rev 14

NONE OF THAT FITS REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY.
ALL of must be changed.
All of it.
Click to expand...

You have sure listed off a lot of stuff there Psalm.
Didn't you just ask me to re-read Romans?
You make it difficult for me to give a constructive answer.
You are right that people have biases when they read the Bible.
I am trying to adopt Biblical "biases".
I do not want to miss any genuine reference to Christ and His kingdom because of Mathew 6:33.
I try to into bring captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ (2COR 10:5)
Another long held tradition of Biblical bias is that of Rabbinic Judaism.
I think that much of Christendom is affected by their interpretations.
 
Beekeeper said:
I am simply referring to the kingdom of Christ.
Jesus is the king of Israel in the line of David to this day.
He is also the seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:16), and the one who all the promises, including the land, were made to.
All Jesus disciples were Israelites, so there is no possibility of Him being guilty of replacing Israel.
Jesus has simply defined Israel in a different way from the way we have been taught to define it by modern "Israel".
Remember that the children of Israel were always a people, not a place.
Click to expand...

Some are unaware that there is no such thing as israelites in the original text. Because of this they have made a distinction between the two.
The ites were a add on such as israelites, Canaanites, jebusites ect. Original text is Israeli
 
Psalm1 said:
Elijah said " I am all that is left"

God said "I have reserved thousands that have not bowed the knee to baal."

You are guessing at a dynamic in the Jewish people....as did Elijah
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what you mean.
Do you mean the Elijah of the New Testament who said to those proud Pharisees who made an issue of their lineage, " 9And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. "?
Matthew 3
 
God-fearing said:
Some are unaware that there is no such thing as israelites in the original text. Because of this they have made a distinction between the two.
The ites were a add on such as israelites, Canaanites, jebusites ect. Original text is Israeli
Click to expand...

You could be right about that word, I do not know.
I have done some Greek, but in Hebrew I can't even tell you the plural form of "zera".

I wonder if there are people here that would contest the view that Jesus is the king of Israel after David, or the view that His disciples were in that kingdom Israel?
If this is where "replacement theology" began, are we not accusing Jesus of it?
 
Psalm1 said:
What needs to be on the table is what romans 11 says.
You added some non applicable stuff in there.
If you read it without spin, omissions, additives and doctrine, it is beyond clear.
Isreal regathered, purchased at the end.
The 144k ETHNIC JEWS IN REVELATION, are exactly what they are depicted as.

Replacement theology is 100% against romans 11.
You have demonstrated that.
Click to expand...

Table thumping on the 144k is not going to shed much light on the debate.
Many in my camp also think the 144k are selected from future Israel, and I am willing to be corrected if wrong.
Either way it will offer little help to you and I though, because the foundational difference between us is in how we define Israel, not in who the 144k might be.

Your suggestion of bringing Romans 11 on the table may be a useful one though.
I will cut to the chase and go to v.26, because it seems to be the center of the contention.

Romans 11:26 "And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:"

The 3 most popular definitions of "all Israel" in this verse that I am familiar with are listed as follows:
1. Paul refers to "all" of the remnant of the children of the nation as in v.5.
2. Paul refers to "all Israel" as a nation containing people of all ethnicities like the "Israel of God" described in Galatians 6:16.
3. Paul refers to the citizens of modern "Israel", all or part of whom will in the future become Christians.

Many who believe that the true kingdom of Israel is made up exclusively of people who are in Christ (as I also believe), also hold to 1.

No. 1. is not incompatible with our view, but I hold to 2. for the following reasons:
a) Paul qualifies his use of the word "Israel" in v. 7 earlier in his letter when he explains how "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:"
Romans 9:6
b) Paul has already taught that "They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." in Romans chapter 9, and it is a common understanding to the readers.
c) Paul has illustrated the kingdom Israel as an olive tree containing Jews and Gentiles, and he uses the adjective "all".
d) the second half of the verse is from Isaiah 59:20
"And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob"
It is a reference to Christ in His first coming.
e) οὗτος (houtos) means "for this reason" and the word for "and so" (v.26) has a genitive plural ending οὗτωσ, meaning "for these reasons" in clumsy English. See also NIV and ESV translation.
f) There is a doxology beginning in v.33 (o the depths etc) indicating that Paul has just expanded our understanding and not merely repeated his thought from v.5

How do you interpret "all Israel" in v.36, and what are your reasons?
 
Beekeeper said:
Gideon,
We have already met here, and you already know that I have read the OT.
The focus here is Rom 9-11.
I think that my sources regarding the history and culture of Palestine are more reliable than yours, but what is the point of entering into it?
All that Israeli propaganda talk is not relevant, and only serves to muddy the waters.
All I have said here is that support for your political views (or mine for that matter) can not be found in Rom 9-11.
If you disagree with me that is ok, but please show me without running away from the chapters.
Click to expand...
Tell me how all Israel can be saved if Israel does not exist. Romans 11:26
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2ndTimeIsTheCharm
Beekeeper said:
Gideon,
We have already met here, and you already know that I have read the OT.
The focus here is Rom 9-11.
I think that my sources regarding the history and culture of Palestine are more reliable than yours, but what is the point of entering into it?
All that Israeli propaganda talk is not relevant, and only serves to muddy the waters.
All I have said here is that support for your political views (or mine for that matter) can not be found in Rom 9-11.
If you disagree with me that is ok, but please show me without running away from the chapters.
Click to expand...
OK, I've answered your statement re Romans 9-11. Now I will address your statement re Palestine. Your sources re the history of and culture of Palestine are leading you astray. There is now, and never has been a nation called Palestine. There are no Palestinians and therefore there is no culture.

From time to time I address issues for two reasons. One is to answer posts directly with the poster. But I also know that others read our posts and the responses. I realise that some people are fixed in their positions and nothing will change them. Others who read the posts may be influenced by what they read.
 
Gideon300 said:
There is now, and never has been a nation called Palestine. There are no Palestinians and therefore there is no culture.
Click to expand...

As much as you want to de-humanize them, I assure you they are real people with a real culture. And they are just as concerned about the theft of their land and the destruction of their culture as you are about immigrant culture stealing your future and destroying your culture. Treat Palestinians like you want to be treated or you are living in sin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eli1
God-fearing said:
Some are unaware that there is no such thing as israelites in the original text. Because of this they have made a distinction between the two.
The ites were a add on such as israelites, Canaanites, jebusites ect. Original text is Israeli
Click to expand...

The word Israeli is not in the bible
 
Gideon300 said:
OK, I've answered your statement re Romans 9-11. Now I will address your statement re Palestine. Your sources re the history of and culture of Palestine are leading you astray. There is now, and never has been a nation called Palestine. There are no Palestinians and therefore there is no culture.

From time to time I address issues for two reasons. One is to answer posts directly with the poster. But I also know that others read our posts and the responses. I realize that some people are fixed in their positions and nothing will change them. Others who read the posts may be influenced by what they read.
Click to expand...

If I thought you were a History scholar I would be happy to engage, but if you think Palestine was invented by Yasser Arafat our conversation is not going to edify anybody. I am here for truth, not to "win" any debate. Lets not muddy the waters.

I now invite you to a more thoughtful and intelligent response to what I have said about Rom 11:26.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back