Replacement Theology

[Beekeeper]

That's where all of these errant beliefs come from starting with the Scofield bible

Yes, we are looking at a tradition of doctrine that was started in the 1930s.
John Nelson Darby sowed, Cyrus Scofield watered and Billy Graham and a few others popularized it far and wide.
The doctrine incorporates pre tribulation rapture with dispensationalism, and uses the traditional OT interpretations of Rabbinic Judaism. These interpretations are Christianized by interpreting prophesies far into the future and calling their "messianic references" the second coming of Christ.
People who read theologians of the 15th, 16th and 17th centurys are becoming rare, and few who call us "replacement theologians" realize that they have one of the newest religions in the world.
When my grandmother was young it was about as common to speak about "Judaeo-Christianity" as it now is to speak of "Islamo-Christianity".

 

[Gideon300]

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.

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.

I simply don't agree with your understanding of Romans 11:26.

As to Palestine, when you tell me where the state of Palestine is, when it was constitute, how you define "Palestinian", then we can have a discussion. Since there is no Palestine, therefore no Palestinians, I see nothing to discuss. Show me where I'm wrong. Let me help:

A crash course on history of PALESTINIAN STATE:

1. Before Israel, there was a British mandate, not a Palestinian state

2. Before the British Mandate, there was the Ottoman Empire, not a Palestinian state.

3. Before the Ottoman Empire, there was the Islamic state of the Mamluks of Egypt, not a Palestinian state.

4. Before the Islamic state of the Mamluks of Egypt, there was the Ayubid Arab-Kurdish Empire, not a Palestinian state.

5. Before the Ayubid Empire, there was the Frankish and Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem, not a Palestinian state.

6. Before the Kingdom of Jerusalem, there was the Umayyad and Fatimid empires, not a Palestinian state.

7. Before the Umayyad and Fatimid empires, there was the Byzantine empire, not a Palestinian state.

8. Before the Byzantine Empire, there were the Sassanids, not a Palestinian state.

9. Before the Sassanid Empire, there was the Byzantine Empire, not a Palestinian state.

10. Before the Byzantine Empire, there was the Roman Empire, not a Palestinian state.

11. Before the Roman Empire, there was the Hasmonean state, not a Palestinian state.

12. Before the Hasmonean state, there was the Seleucid, not a Palestinian state.

13. Before the Seleucid empire, there was the empire of Alexander the Great, not a Palestinian state.

14. Before the empire of Alexander the Great, there was the Persian Empire, not a Palestinian state.

15. Before the Persian Empire, there was the Babylonian Empire, not a Palestinian state.

16. Before the Babylonian Empire, there were the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, not a Palestinian state.

17. Before the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, there was the Kingdom of Israel, not a Palestinian state.

18. Before the kingdom of Israel, there was the theocracy of the twelve tribes of Israel, not a Palestinian state.

19. Before the theocracy of the twelve tribes of Israel, there was an agglomeration of independent Canaanite city-kingdoms, not a Palestinian state.

20. Actually, in this piece of land there has been everything,

EXCEPT A “Palestinian” “state”

“Uti Possidetis Juris” Israel has the right to exist.

No, I'm not typing in tongues. It's Latin, a legal term that has been around since the days of the Roman empire. It is defined as:

"A principle of international law that dictates newly formed sovereign states retain the internal borders of their preceding dependent areas. Essentially, it means newly independent nations inherit the boundaries that existed under colonial rule, preventing territorial disputes and promoting stability."

What this means is, for example, Ukraine legally retains the borders that it had when it declared independence from Russia. Russia's claims on Ukraine have no legal basis whatsoever. It also means that the state of Israel legally includes Jerusalem, the currently recognised area of Israel and the so called West Bank. The West Bank is in fact Judea and Samaria.

This has nothing to do with Israel's spiritual status, apart from the fact that it is God-ordained. East Jerusalem was captured by Jordan after Israel declared independence. Likewise, the so-called West bank. Israel took back those areas in 1967. To say it is illegal means also that much of the Southern states of America are also illegally occupied.

So why the almost universal hostility to Israel? Why does the world eagerly cling to Hamas lies - apart from some of Muslim nations in the Middle East? No Muslim country is prepared to accept so-called Palestinian refugees. So much for the brotherhood of Muslims.



The reason is simple. Muslims in Israel and Gaza are implacably opposed to the state of Israel. So is Iran and, secretly, even the few Muslim states that are outwardly friendly to Israel.



Shia Islam believes that Israel must be destroyed before their version of the (false) Messiah returns. There is no prospect for peace in the Middle East while such a view prevails or until the aggressors are defeated. Founding a hostile Muslim state on the border with Israel is lunacy. We should be praying against such a move.

 

[Gideon300]

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.

Since there are no Palestinians, it's a bit tricky to treat them as other than the followers of a mass murdering paedophile. I have nothing against individual Muslims that do not seek to cut off my head and/or impose Sharia law on the place I live. I've met a few who are decent and caring people. The Ahmadi sect is non violent.

I despise Muslim culture with every fibre of my being. Muslims worship a false god and place Jesus as inferior to a wicked warlord who murdered, lied, and raped his way to an empire.

Jesus said to love our enemies. I would do harm to no one except to defend myself or my family.

Your ignorance of the so called Palestinian cause is pathetic.

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.

Not true. God gave the land to Abraham and to Israel.

 

[Beekeeper]

I simply don't agree with your understanding of Romans 11:26.

As to Palestine, when you tell me where the state of Palestine is, when it was constitute, how you define "Palestinian", then we can have a discussion. Since there is no Palestine, therefore no Palestinians, I see nothing to discuss. Show me where I'm wrong. Let me help:

A crash course on history of PALESTINIAN STATE:

1. Before Israel, there was a British mandate, not a Palestinian state

2. Before the British Mandate, there was the Ottoman Empire, not a Palestinian state.

3. Before the Ottoman Empire, there was the Islamic state of the Mamluks of Egypt, not a Palestinian state.

4. Before the Islamic state of the Mamluks of Egypt, there was the Ayubid Arab-Kurdish Empire, not a Palestinian state.

5. Before the Ayubid Empire, there was the Frankish and Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem, not a Palestinian state.

6. Before the Kingdom of Jerusalem, there was the Umayyad and Fatimid empires, not a Palestinian state.

7. Before the Umayyad and Fatimid empires, there was the Byzantine empire, not a Palestinian state.

8. Before the Byzantine Empire, there were the Sassanids, not a Palestinian state.

9. Before the Sassanid Empire, there was the Byzantine Empire, not a Palestinian state.

10. Before the Byzantine Empire, there was the Roman Empire, not a Palestinian state.

11. Before the Roman Empire, there was the Hasmonean state, not a Palestinian state.

12. Before the Hasmonean state, there was the Seleucid, not a Palestinian state.

13. Before the Seleucid empire, there was the empire of Alexander the Great, not a Palestinian state.

14. Before the empire of Alexander the Great, there was the Persian Empire, not a Palestinian state.

15. Before the Persian Empire, there was the Babylonian Empire, not a Palestinian state.

16. Before the Babylonian Empire, there were the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, not a Palestinian state.

17. Before the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, there was the Kingdom of Israel, not a Palestinian state.

18. Before the kingdom of Israel, there was the theocracy of the twelve tribes of Israel, not a Palestinian state.

19. Before the theocracy of the twelve tribes of Israel, there was an agglomeration of independent Canaanite city-kingdoms, not a Palestinian state.

20. Actually, in this piece of land there has been everything,

EXCEPT A “Palestinian” “state”

“Uti Possidetis Juris” Israel has the right to exist.

No, I'm not typing in tongues. It's Latin, a legal term that has been around since the days of the Roman empire. It is defined as:

"A principle of international law that dictates newly formed sovereign states retain the internal borders of their preceding dependent areas. Essentially, it means newly independent nations inherit the boundaries that existed under colonial rule, preventing territorial disputes and promoting stability."

What this means is, for example, Ukraine legally retains the borders that it had when it declared independence from Russia. Russia's claims on Ukraine have no legal basis whatsoever. It also means that the state of Israel legally includes Jerusalem, the currently recognised area of Israel and the so called West Bank. The West Bank is in fact Judea and Samaria.

This has nothing to do with Israel's spiritual status, apart from the fact that it is God-ordained. East Jerusalem was captured by Jordan after Israel declared independence. Likewise, the so-called West bank. Israel took back those areas in 1967. To say it is illegal means also that much of the Southern states of America are also illegally occupied.

So why the almost universal hostility to Israel? Why does the world eagerly cling to Hamas lies - apart from some of Muslim nations in the Middle East? No Muslim country is prepared to accept so-called Palestinian refugees. So much for the brotherhood of Muslims.



The reason is simple. Muslims in Israel and Gaza are implacably opposed to the state of Israel. So is Iran and, secretly, even the few Muslim states that are outwardly friendly to Israel.



Shia Islam believes that Israel must be destroyed before their version of the (false) Messiah returns. There is no prospect for peace in the Middle East while such a view prevails or until the aggressors are defeated. Founding a hostile Muslim state on the border with Israel is lunacy. We should be praying against such a move.

You do not have to agree with me on Rom 11:26.
I presented 3 different views, and you were at liberty to present a fourth if you wished.
So it all hinges on you and I having an argument about Palestine now?
Really! If I was not such a trusting type I would have thought that you have a doctrine that cannot survive the test of reason and scripture.

Anyway, as they say fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

I am an Australian beekeeper, but the son of an immigrant.
My father was born in Palestine in 1933, and remembers the British Mandate.
My Grandparents were born in Palestine and remembered the Ottoman times.
My Grandmother was born in 1898.
Their ancestry was German, so they were Palestinians in the same sense that I now am an Australian.
The village that they lived in looks over the valley of Jezreel, and is now near the Ben Gurion airport.
The land that they lived in was called Palestine all over the world, and marked that way on every map, just as it has ever since the Crusaders left.
My "more reliable sources" are the witness testimonies of old people who WERE THERE. I have had the privilege of being able to listen to these people, but you are free to brush it all aside if smugness and ignorance are things that you value.

The Israelis did not come looking for peace, but with an army to have war and to get land.
Massacres against Arabs began after 1919, and increased until the 1945 war erupted.
My relatives were 'prisoners of war" under the British Mandate, and so had some protection for a time.
When the news of the British withdrawal was out, they were in trouble.
My fathers uncle was considered mayor of the village and was shot in the head by Jewish soldiers after refusing to sell the village for a ridiculously low price.
Two small boys were tortured to death in public by Jewish soldiers to "encourage" the people to leave.
A couple was shot in their home and a threat was issued to all that they would suffer the same fate if they did not go.
When they evacuated they had only one day to get to the ships provided by the British with what they could carry.
The fate of the Arab Palestinians was infinitely worse than theirs.
There used to be many Christians in the land too, and they did not suffer violence from the Muslims.
They were heavily persecuted by the Israelis.
The newcomers had a habit of bulldozing out anything that looks "Arab", so that they could tell the next immigrants that the land was empty. Many ancient artifacts suffered that fate, including the house of Jeremiah, which had been lovingly preserved both by Crusaders and Arabs.
They were complete foreigners, with no understanding or connection to the land.
Their "wailing wall" is not the remains of Herod's temple, but of a Roman fortress.

You wasted a lot of space with that rave about a Palestinian state.
People of any land are not defined by what sort of government they have.
Australians and Americans like to think they have a history too, yet both have been around for a much shorter time than the Palestinians.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Not true. God gave the land to Abraham and to Israel.

God unconditionally gave the land to Christ (Genesis 15:18), and conditionally gave the land to Israel to live in based on their obedience to the covenant God made with them in Moab. In that covenant he placed them under a curse if they did not obey every word of the law that they would be destroyed and driven off the land.

Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen. Deuteronomy 27:26​

But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee: Deuteronomy 28:15​

​

And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it. Deuteronomy 28:63​

​

These are the words of the covenant, which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb (Sinai). Deuteronomy 29:1​

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Their "wailing wall" is not the remains of Herod's temple, but of a Roman fortress.

I laugh and smh every time I see pictures of people praying at the base of Fort Antonio and the Roman encampment

 

[Charlesiii]

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.

Here were some rules about who couldn't enter the congregation of the Lord. Although you should note there were still exceptions (e.g. Ruth, the Moabitess), because it was always about faith - a matter of the heart, not the flesh.

Deuteronomy 23: 2 - 8
2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.
3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord for ever:
4 Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee.
5 Nevertheless the Lord thy God would not hearken unto Balaam; but the Lord thy God turned the curse into a blessing unto thee, because the Lord thy God loved thee.
6 Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever.
7 Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land.
8 The children that are begotten of them shall enter into the congregation of the Lord in their third generation.

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.

It was always about faith - the works will follow.

Deuteronomy 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

It was always about faith - the works will follow.

Deuteronomy 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

That was for those who were already in covenant with God via physical circumcision. No man was a part of Israel without that work being performed .

 

[Charlesiii]

That was for those who were already in covenant with God via physical circumcision. No man was a part of Israel without that work being performed .

Romans 2:28 - 29
For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Romans 2:28 - 29
For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

You are psychologically incapable of acknowledging the fact that no man could be in covenant with God and be a part of natural Israel apart from physical circumcision.

 

[Charlesiii]

You are psychologically incapable of acknowledging the fact that no man could be in covenant with God and be a part of natural Israel apart from physical circumcision.

I think when you talk about covenants with God and natural Israel - the two don't necessarily go together - in the same way that salvation doesn't necessary go with the world, although "God did so love the world". God's covenant was with Abraham and his spiritual descendants. The focus of Abraham's natural line was Christ.

Uncircumcision was disobedience in a similar way that murder or adultery was, although uncircumcision more easily remedied. King David didn't remind God of his circumcision covenant when caught for adultery with Bathsheba and the murder of her husband, Uriah. All crimes were equally worthy of being cut off like a foreskin - death.

 

[God-fearing]

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?

Replacement theology imo has anti semitisim roots based on the rejection of Christ. Many disregard Christ words of .....no man takes my life, .....forgive them for they know not what they do.
Jesus never refuted the restoration of Israel when asked by his followers. Just its timing.
The church could also be found in Genesis in eve as created from Adam as the help mate. But that's another study.
Regardless of the sins of Israel God himself said he would redeem for his (Gods) namesake. Not any merit of Israel.
Which should be a blessing to us Christians to see that God is able to save even to the uttermost as Paul says.
But instead its caused division among believers which is clearly a work of Satan when unity is one of the key issues of Christ death.
The new man which is able to worship in spirit and truth.
Israel is the physical gentiles the spiritual. Which gives the title to Jesus Lord of lords King of kings overall that is in heaven and earth.
Over the physical over the spiritual. The all mighty God.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

God's covenant was with Abraham and his spiritual descendants.

It was with his natural descendants as well. Spiritualizing everything just creates confusion.

Uncircumcision was disobedience in a similar way that murder or adultery was, although uncircumcision more easily remedied. King David didn't remind God of his circumcision covenant when caught for adultery with Bathsheba and the murder of her husband, Uriah. All crimes were equally worthy of being cut off like a foreskin - death.

The thing is most sins of those circumcised and thereby in covenant with God could be remedied by offering the required sacrifice(s) and restitution if necessary, but uncircumcision could only be remedied by circumcision.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

The church could also be found in Genesis in eve as created from Adam as the help mate. But that's another study.

This is absurd.

 

[Psalm1]

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?

Omitting verses and calling others table thumpers tells me you can not honestly unpack a dynamic outside your doctrine.

 

[Psalm1]

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.

You are not circumspect , nor serious about learning, by omitting verses, then diverting into ascribing tradition to someone taking you to school.

 

[Psalm1]

Jonathan Cahnman is always hard to watch

I can imagine how that video would really expose your wrong beliefs

 

[Psalm1]

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.

The tribes dynamic is really hard to wiggle out of.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

I can imagine how that video would really expose your wrong beliefs

I meant it's hard to stomach his unending lies.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

The tribes dynamic is really hard to wiggle out of.

Why? Anyone in the world could have become circumcised and joined one of the tribes. Theoretically, a tribe could have been composed solely of converts. It was just a name.