Zionism among the Evangelicals is contradicted by Scripture

I believe the Jewish nation largely remains in darkness, even as in Jesus' day. Not sure whether Romans 11 is for then or now, or both.

That is "the fullness of the Gentlles", after which God will resume His direct dealings with Israel. The fulness of the Gentiles is the full complement of Gentiles who will be added to the Church until the Ratpure. But "the times of the Gentiles" will end when Antichrist and his allies are destroyed at the battle of Armageddon.

2 Corinthians 3:13-15~ We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at the end of what was fading away. But their minds were closed. For to this day the same veil remains at the reading of the old covenant. It has not been lifted, because only in Christ can it be removed. And even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away
.

Some ultra-Orthodox Jews want to ban the Gospel from Israel as we speak. Netanyahu will have none of it.

If a Jew becomes a Believer, is baptized in the death of Christ, and is given new life by the Father as a new creation, does he then have to choose between the promises attached to his fleshly lineage or the promises secured by Christ for him?

If we say "promises of his fleshly lineage" then we make his death in Christ ineffectual and he is not born again. He is also not a new creation because the original creation remains alive.

If we (rightfully) quote the scriptures that extend the promises to Abraham to new creations in Christ, we must then extend them all who are in Christ, do we not? He is the Seed (singular) that was to come, is He not?

The dry bones coming together is a picture of Israels restoration. It doesn't happen all at once. I agree with you.

I do not believe the New Covenant people of God, the assemblies of Christ "replaced" Israel, the OT people of God. Believers, the New Covenant people of God are a continuation of the Old Covenant people of God. The Old Covenant is past, not to be brought back!

"Circumcision is nothing; uncircumcision is nothing; the only thing that counts is new creation! All who take this principle for their guide, peace and mercy be upon them, the Israel of God!" (Gal 6:15-16, REB)

"For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, upon the Israel of God." (Gal 6:15-16, RSV)

"For neither circumcision nor the lack of it has any value, but only a new creation. Now peace and mercy be on all who walk by this rule; that is, on the true Israel of God." (Gal 6:15-16 Williams)

"Yet God forbid that I should boast about anything or anybody except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, which means that the world is a dead thing to me and I am a dead man to the world. But in Christ it is not circumcision or uncircumcision that counts but the power of new birth. To all who live by this principle, to the true Israel of God, may there be peace and mercy!" (Gal 6:14-16 Phillips)

The Israel of today are those who are the new creation, those who have been born from above. Circumcision or no circumcision makes no difference now.

Yes, I saw that. Thanks.

There is NO "after which" in that passage!

"Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, 'The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob'”; (Rom 11:25-26, RSV)

Jews have been being born from above down through the centuries because there has been a partial hardening. There is no "after which" there. It reads "and so", in this manner.

Yes there is and you should read it for yourself. And you should not be wise in your own conceits.

Peter Pett's Commentary on 1 Pet. 2:9 shows the church to be a continuation of true Israel, a succession of Israel; NOT A REPLACEMENT! The OT prophets spoke of the New Covenant assembly, NOT some renewed Jewish state in our future. This is just a portion of Pett's comments.

"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were no people but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy but now you have received mercy." (1Pet 2:9-10, RSV)

"Every phrase in this verse is pregnant with meaning, for He is declaring what the church, as the continuation of the true Israel, really are. They are:

· ‘An elect race (a chosen race).’ Initially God had chosen Israel as ‘His elect, His chosen’ (Isa 42:1; Isa 45:4), expanded in Isa 43:20 b LXX into His ‘elect race’ Outwardly it appeared as though it was the whole nation which were being described, but a careful reading of the Old Testament reveals that the elect were really seen as those who responded to the covenant (e.g. Isa 65:9; compare Isa 4:3-4; Isa 6:11-13 and often). They were the ‘seven thousand who had not bowed the knee to Baal’ (1Ki 19:18). ‘Israel’ was a fluid concept. Initially it was made up of the households of the Patriarchs which included many foreigners who were servants and slaves in the family tribe. It was never strictly true that all Israel were directly descended from the Patriarchs, except by adoption. Subsequently any foreigners who wished to enter the covenant could do so by living among His people and being circumcised (Exo 12:48 - although there were certain limitations and exceptions - Deu 23:1-8). And many did so, including the mixed multitude of Exo 12:38. The essential point was that ‘Israel’ was made up of those who were, at least theoretically, truly committed to the covenant, of whatever nationality. And in contrast any of Israel who rejected the covenant by their words and actions were ‘cut off’. That is why God could speak of them as ‘not my people’ (Hos 1:10). Notice Paul’s vivid picture of the branches being cut off from, or grafted into, the olive tree (Rom 11:17-28).

But now, says Peter, it is the church who are the true succession of Israel. It is they who are now His ‘elect race’. It is they who are the continuation of the true Israel. It is only they who are true to the covenant. They are the new nation, springing out of the old, spoken of by Jesus in Mat 21:43, and founded on Jesus the Jew and the Jewish Apostles and the early Jewish church. And they are thus God’s chosen ones, set apart to fulfil His purposes for the world. They are the true children of Abraham (Gal 3:29), chosen by God and precious. They are the true ‘chosen race’.

‘A royal priesthood.’ His people are also a ‘royal priesthood’. Compare Rev 1:6. This is clearly Peter’s interpretation of ‘a kingship of priests’ (Exo 19:6), the latter stated at a time when each family head was a priest. The idea was that Israel would be priests to the nations in a royal capacity, because they represented the King. This may well also have in mind the royal priesthood of David, who, once he became king of Jerusalem, thereby became an intercessory priest ‘after the order of Melchizedek’ (Psa 110:4, compare the king of Jerusalem in Gen 14:18; and see Zec 6:13; Heb 6:19 to Heb 7:25). This ‘royal priesthood’ is not a priesthood of sacerdotal duties. That is not in mind here. It is a priesthood of outgoing responsibility. Like those who bore the vessels of the Lord they were to go out in order to proclaim God’s truth with the certainty that God would go with them (Isa 52:11-12; compare Isa 2:3). For priests were also essentially involved, among other things, in preaching, teaching, interpreting the Law and interceding for the people, and as royal priests the church were to do the same from a new position of royal authority. Indeed the future of Israel had very much been seen as one of ‘priesthood’ (Isa 61:6), which was also to involve Gentiles (Isa 66:21), and here it finds its fulfilment through the church, the new Israel."
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/pet/1-peter-2.html

Is this Thread about Replacement Theology?

Give me the verse in Romans chapter 11 where you find "after which". I've checked several translations and do not find that phrase anywhere in the book of Romans.

Supersessionism, also called replacement theology or fulfillment theology is a Christian theology which describes the theological conviction that the Christian Church has superseded the Jews and the nation of Israel, assuming their role as God's covenanted people thus asserting that the New Covenant through Jesus Christ has superseded or replaced the Mosaic covenant exclusive to Jews. Supersessionist theology also holds that the universal Christian Church has succeeded ancient Israel as God's true Israel and that Christians have succeeded the ancient Israelites as the people of God.

NO, this thread is not about the modern straw man of "Replacement Theology", but this is a label placed on the historical Christian understanding of the Bible by the church. The weird theology of dispensationalism never showed up until the latter 1800s. I was accused earlier in this thread of teaching "Replacement Theology" so I answered this in the previous reply.

His argument is not replacement, but succession or continuation theology. Continuation is the better term as it was always God's intention to redeem Gentiles en masses.
This is not in contradiction to a whole array of NT teaching.

I, once again like Calvin/Armini, had to research about this idealism behind the doctrine of Replacement Theology. I was not raised and taught the structure from the inside out viewpoint. But from my own roots in many Baptist idealism', I knew someone held value toward this Topic.

Interesting Thread.

I have to definitely reread it again. From my own viewpoint, I don't see it anywhere in Scripture. You really have to emphasize on words used. And it basically falls to here's Five Scriptures, Not connected in any way or even about the same Original Thought from where they were Found in Other Passages of Scripture that had Never and will Never be connected to how Replacement Theology could ever be taken seriously enough to believe in.

It's an idea created by MAN!

And who is man to me?