Please Stop Saying "Replacement Theology"

[A Realist]

Sure they did.

In Numbers 34, yes......in Joshua 1, no.

 

[Tree of Life]

The Hebrew OT never uses the word ekklesia.

I assume you realize that this is because the OT was written in Hebrew and ekklesia is a Greek word. But the LXX, a Greek translation of the OT made by Jews, regularly translates the Hebrew qahal (assembly) as ekklesia.

 

[Dave-W]

he LXX, a Greek translation of the OT made by Jews, regularly translates the Hebrew qahal (assembly) as ekklesia.

Yes, I get that. But whether or not the LXX is valid or not is way off topic for this discussion.

But either way, Kihilat is still the original and NOT a translation.

 

[Tree of Life]

Yes, I get that. But whether or not the LXX is valid or not is way off topic for this discussion.

But either way, Kihilat is still the original and NOT a translation.

I think it's pretty relevant to this discussion.

The LXX was the Bible that most first century Jews read (most of them being hellenistic Jews living in the dispersion). The NT was written in Greek. It's very interesting to note that the word that they reached for when describing the Jesus community is the same word that was used in the LXX to describe the covenant people of Yahweh. Seems to me that the NT authors were trying to make a connection.

 

[claninja]

....but not the land as stated in Joshua 1:1

Joshua 21:43-45 comes after Joshua 1:3-4.

Joshua 21:43-45 Thus the LORD gave Israel all the land He had sworn to give their fathers, and they took possession of it and settled there. And the LORD gave them rest on every side, just as He had sworn to their fathers. None of their enemies could stand against them, for the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand. Not one of all the LORD's good promises to the house of Israel failed; everything was fulfilled.

Historical fact shows they did not.

What "historical" facts are those? Remember, absence of evidence is not proof. Using absence of evidence as proof is known as an argument from ignorance which is a type of logical fallacy.

What evidence do you have that they did?

I have scriptural evidence that states God gave all the land to Israel that he swore to give to their fathers.

Joshua 21:43-45 Thus the Lord gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers. And they took possession of it, and they settled there. And the Lord gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the Lord had given all their enemies into their hands. Not one word of all the good promises that the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass.

Do you have any biblical evidence that states God did not give Israel of the land he promised to the fathers?

 

[His student]

What, in your view, constitutes "Ethnic Jews & National Israel"?

You see national Israel in the news every day - mostly comprised of non believers. That's pretty self explanatory

Suffice it to say that I am not using the term ethnic as one would use the word "race".

I'm not going to enter into a discussion of exactly what percentage of DNA comprises ethic "Jewishness". That's better determined by God since He has pretty much followed the composition of every hair on every head on earth since the time of Christ and indeed since the creation of the first man.

God has no problem with tracing physical lineage in Matthew and Luke. If He finds it somewhat relevant so do I.

Judaism defines as Jewish anyone who is born to a Jewish mother or who converts to Judaism in accordance with Jewish law.

It may well be that the Lord follows this construct rather than one based on genetics when, for instance, talking about the 144,000 virgins from the tribes of Israel who preach to the world during the Tribulation period.

If you have trouble with the concept of Jewish ethnicity - just leave it alone and use the later formulation when considering the residents of national Israel. That seems to be the way the nation of Israel defines Jewishness anyway.

But please don't use the idea of ethnicity as a way of avoiding the main point of my post. That rabbit trail won't get us anywhere in so far as understanding where most "replacement" types go wrong in their study of the scriptures.

 

[notreligus]

I don't care if I'm accused of Replacement Theology. I'm not the one who is confused and trying to be saved by Convenantal Nomism. We are now under the New Covenant. It is a blood covenant and it does not require keeping 613 commandments (and I don't care if rabbis argue today over which commandments are part of the Mitzvot). Rabbinical Judaism was being practiced long before Christ came as the Messiah (who was rejected because He was not a political Messiah). The Israelites had made the Temple into a den of robbers and had pretty well turned to rabbinical Judaism by meeting at synagogues.

Christ came to reconcile the world to God Almighty. Christ was God (eternal) come to the world in a temporal body. He did not come as an experiment to see if He could be successful at fulfilling the Law and rendering it obsolete. The Old System is dead. Why keep trying to dig-up a dead covenant and bring it back in place of what Hebrews has called a Better Covenant with better promises, and a Great High Priest who Mediates and Intercedes as an attorney for those who have put their faith in what He has done!

 

[A Realist]

Again, one can, in fact, possess a piece of Land they NEVER set foot on.

We're talking about national boundaries here. How exactly did nations possess land in ancient times? How were borders set in ancient times?

Again, we're talking about the boundaries as stated in Joshua 1

 

[A Realist]

I have scriptural evidence that states God gave all the land to Israel that he swore to give to their fathers.

Which land? Numbers 34 or Joshua 1?

Anyway, this is not "evidence". You have no facts or body of information to support it.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Read through all of these posts.

"Interesting very interesting."
Sergeant Shultz - Hogan's Heroes

One thing I think people miss; which as been pointed to by posters in this thread, is that those who've been predestine to election from the foundations of the world have always been "God's people". They have not been "replaced" by anyone. This has been true regardless of what ethnicity or nation they came from, or what era they lived in. There have always been people with Jewish DNA that are elect, as well as people with non-Jewish DNA who are elect. That is and always has been true throughout history.

Also though, the Scripture is EXTREMELY CLEAR if you DO NOT BELIEVE you have no place in the kingdom! God does not care what DNA you have.

This is how and why He is not a respecter of persons. (Acts 10:34) Peter is making this statement as a result of encountering Cornelius. Peter goes on in the next verse:

"But in every nation he that fears him, and works righteousness, is accepted with him."

Now obviously Joshua 1:1 is answered in Joshua 21:43-45. Yet the point was made about God's people inheriting the earth. They do so in the "first round" in the proclamation of the gospel and ultimately in the "end game" through the new heavens and new earth.

Romans 11:

Now, we have to take this entire passage into context.

Paul opens by asking "Has God cast away his people?" and answered his own question: "God has not cast away his people which he foreknew." (There's election!)

From here Paul goes on to give examples of "the elect of Israel".

Now are all of those who are of Israel of the flesh the elect? No, they are not!

Romans 9
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, 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.

Now who is the seed?

Galatians 3:16 & 29
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Now in verses 11-15; Paul starts talking about "provoking them to jealousy". Now the irony of this is that only those who are elect are going to be provoked to a jealousy which leads them to salvation. Those cut off, may be provoked to jealousy, but will still be condemned for their unbelief.

Now verse 12 and 13 speak of "how much more their fullness" and "I speak to you as gentiles..." Hold that thought because in latter verses; Paul explains what the fullness of Israel coming into being is.

Now verses 16-24: Paul starts talking about the root and the branches. The root is Christ. The branches are the believers. (John 15:5) Note verse 23: "And they also, IF they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

(had to make sure no-one missed that "IF"!)

Now verses 25-29:
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Note: God did not cut off everyone for the nation's rejection of the Messiah just because they were genetic descendants of Jacob.

Now, what is the "fullness of the gentiles"? Paul spoke earlier of the "fullness of Israel" and "I speak to you as gentiles". Now he's speaking of the "fullness of the gentiles".

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:

27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

"All Israel shall be saved" - The verses following are the qualifier. Those who's ungodliness is turned away. Those who's sins are taken away. Those who recognize Christ as their Messiah. Once those "foreknown" of both Jew and gentile are come in - thus all of Israel is saved. Note God is not "restarting" another plan because it got "goofed up" because of their unbelief. That's a heresy of Dispensationalism.

And how do we know this?

Ephesians 2:
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Now if one of the things Christ established by His death is the tearing down of the wall of separation between the jew and gentile; why would He resurrect that wall again at some future date? That makes no contextual sense in the light of the entity of the gospel and what Christ came to accomplish!

28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.

Now what does this verse mean? "enemies for your sakes; but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes."

Note it's "father's sakes" not "Father's sake.". They are beloved as touching the election for the sake of their biological ancestors. The elect believers of times passed who were given a promise "I will be a God to you and your children." We see this played out in family lines; even today. Now you're not guaranteed that as a believer, all your children will be believers; yet more believers are born to households of believers than are born to households of unbelievers. Even so, God says he will save "one out of a city and two out of a family". There are those of us who are "one out of the city".

So what this verse is saying is "of touching those who are elect" they are beloved for the sake of the ancestors who were also elect. It is not saying that those of the flesh who remain in unbelief are beloved for the sake of being genetic descendants of Abraham.

29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

Again, this verse is a reference to election. Those who are elect are elect from the foundations of the world. Elect according to God's purposes.

Romans 9:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, 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.

9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.

10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

So in conclusion: all those of God who are redeemed by Christ are "Israel" because He is the seed. Just as all those who are redeemed are "the body of Christ" / "the church". No one has been replaced. These two entities are the same group of people. They both consist solely of God's elect.

 

[A Realist]

Remember, absence of evidence is not proof. Using absence of evidence as proof is known as an argument from ignorance which is a type of logical fallacy.

In reality, your claim of "scriptural evidence" is a logical fallacy known as The Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam).

In fact, historical or archeological data showing that a particular civilization or nation was not present during certain periods of time is not "absence of evidence", it's evidence itself.

The history of the ancient near east is well documented. Look it up.

 

[A Realist]

DP

 

[parousia70]

In reality, your claim of "scriptural evidence" is a logical fallacy known as The Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam).

If you don't hold the scriptural declaration of the FULFILLMENT of the land promise as authoritative, how is it you can Hold the Scriptural declaration of the PROMISE itself authoritative?

 

[A Realist]

If you don't hold the scriptural declaration of the FULFILLMENT of the land promise as authoritative, how is it you can Hold the Scriptural declaration of the PROMISE itself authoritative?

Which is the fulfillment, and which is the promise?

 

[parousia70]

You see national Israel in the news every day - mostly comprised of non believers. That's pretty self explanatory

Those people have no link to the pre desolation Hebrews though, do they?

Suffice it to say that I am not using the term ethnic as one would use the word "race".

Apparently.
Are you using the term "Ethnic" in any fashion that is a recognized definition of the word?

I'm not going to enter into a discussion of exactly what percentage of DNA comprises ethic "Jewishness". That's better determined by God since He has pretty much followed the composition of every hair on every head on earth since the time of Christ and indeed since the creation of the first man.

So you err on the side of 100% trusting ANYONE who makes the claim then??

What percentage of Jewish DNA did God require for these people to be considered 100% Physical, National Israel?:

Exodus 12:48
And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

I'm thinking that would be exactly 0% Jewish DNA required.
Would you agree?

God has no problem with tracing physical lineage in Matthew and Luke. If He finds it somewhat relevant so do I.

But you just implied it's irrelevant didn't you?

Judaism defines as Jewish anyone who is born to a Jewish mother or who converts to Judaism in accordance with Jewish law.

What Jewish Law would that be?
10 Commandments?
Leviticus?
Deuteronomy?

No Self-proclaimed "Jew" today Follows in accordance with the Mosaic Law.
Just read Leviticus and ask yourself, what Jew does this today?

Today's Jews follow the Post Christain, Man Made Religion of the Babylonian Talmud... Was that the current "Jewish Law" you were referring to? The Post-Christain, Man-Made Talmud?

If you have trouble with the concept of Jewish ethnicity - just leave it alone and use the later formulation when considering the residents of national Israel. That seems to be the way the nation of Israel defines Jewishness anyway.

Of Course, Modern Israel is a Multiethnic, secular, Democratic Nation State. It bears zero resemblance and has no relationship to the pre desolation Hebrew Theocracy.

But please don't use the idea of ethnicity as a way of avoiding the main point of my post. That rabbit trail won't get us anywhere in so far as understanding where most "replacement" types go wrong in their study of the scriptures.

Seems like you have a bunch of multi-ethnic people in Modern Israel that you have accepted as "replacements" for the Pre Desolation Hebrews though....Why is that?

 

[parousia70]

Which is the fulfillment, and which is the promise?

Does it matter?
Whatever you believe they are, are you not also claiming the logical fallacy known as The Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam) by the simple virtue of your belief in the scriptural account?

Perhaps you are the exception to that rule?

 

[A Realist]

Does it matter?
Whatever you believe they are, are you not also claiming the logical fallacy known as The Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam) by the simple virtue of your belief in the scriptural account?

Perhaps you are the exception to the rule?

If the fulfillment and/or the promise of land can be backed up by facts or other bodies of information, then it does matter. Appealing to the "authority" of a bible verse claiming conditions not apparent or existing in history is a logical fallacy.

 

[parousia70]

If the fulfillment and/or the promise of land can be backed up by facts or other bodies of information, then it does matter. Appealing to the "authority" of a bible verse claiming conditions not apparent or existing in history is a logical fallacy.

Ok.. and where can I find the extra Biblical facts from other bodies of information that back up your belief that the promise was delivered?

For that matter, where are the Extra Biblical facts from other bodies of information that Jesus Christ Rose from the Dead and ascended bodily into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father??

 

[A Realist]

Ok.. and where can I find the extra Biblical facts from other bodies of information that back up your belief that the promise was delivered?

Again, what promise?

 

[parousia70]

Again, what promise?

You tell me. What Land promise do you believe has never been fulfilled?

...and where is that non-biblical evidence of the 3rd day rising from the dead and ascension of Jesus into heaven?