THE TRUE "REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY/SUPERSESSIONISM" OF THE BIBLE

[Contenders Edge]

Then your mission should be a simple one.

Awaiting.

Irenaeus, though he believed that the Church was the adopted offspring of Abraham in spirit through Christ, he never said that the Church replaced Israel, at least according to your own source citing. Dispensationalists, like Preterists of any shade, believe that they are the spiritual offspring of Abraham in Christ, but unlike Preterists, they do not believe that the Church has replaced Israel as a nation and a people.

Now, your task is to find any writings of Irenaeus in which he explicitly calls the Church Israel.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You should educate yourself.

And your point? Do you have anything useful to add to the discussion instead of sarcasm and personal attacks?

 

[Contenders Edge]

Do a search for titles named "New Jerusalem"...........you can find a plethora of threads to discuss that on.....

title:new jerusalem

NC Jerusalem spiratural vs OC Jerusalem carnal

New Jerusalem?

I will credit you with this: I have been making a list of threads links that you have told me to visit and have included in your posts ever since I.T.L.R.T.T.N.O.I.F.I.T.N.C. I will no doubt be busy. But if New Jerusalem is not relevant to this particular thread, then why even discuss it here?

 

[Contenders Edge]

No 3,000 did not accept the new covenant that day- 3,000 received Christ as Messiah and were added tpo the church that day! That is a difference! They became partakers of the New Covenant.

Generally speaking, I am in agreement with what you say, but how is one a partaker in a covenant if he does not accept it?

 

[jgr]

Irenaeus, though he believed that the Church was the adopted offspring of Abraham in spirit through Christ, he never said that the Church replaced Israel, at least according to your own source citing. Dispensationalists, like Preterists of any shade, believe that they are the spiritual offspring of Abraham in Christ, but unlike Preterists, they do not believe that the Church has replaced Israel as a nation and a people.

Now, your task is to find any writings of Irenaeus in which he explicitly calls the Church Israel.

Good.

This remains a true statement:

"There is no recognized defender of the true faith between the 2nd and 18th centuries who rejected the aforecited understanding expressed by Justin Martyr and Irenaeus."

 

[BABerean2]

Well, at least we agree that the New Jerusalem has not yet manifested itself. Where we differ is the timing of its appearance.

Peter said it appears on "the day of the Lord" when He, "comes as a thief", in 2 Peter 3:10-13.



.

 

[Contenders Edge]

Good.

This remains a true statement:

"There is no recognized defender of the true faith between the 2nd and 18th centuries who rejected the aforecited understanding expressed by Justin Martyr and Irenaeus."

Then Irenaeus, by the above statement, ought to be disqualified in your eyes as a defender of the true faith since he does not claim that the Church has replaced the nation of Israel.

 

[Contenders Edge]

Peter said it appears on "the day of the Lord" when He, "comes as a thief", in 2 Peter 3:10-13.



.

But why does John claim a thousand year reign before the day of the cited passage?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Contenders Edge said: ↑
Well, at least we agree that the New Jerusalem has not yet manifested itself. Where we differ is the timing of its appearance.

Peter said it appears on "the day of the Lord" when He, "comes as a thief", in 2 Peter 3:10-13.
.

Good verses........
Weren't these verses written before 70AD?

1 Peter 4:7 "THE END OF ALL THINGS IS NIGH AT HAND"

2 Thessalonians 2:1 -And we ask you, brethren, in regard to the parousia of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our gathering together unto him,

James 5:7 Therefore be patient, brethren, until the parousia of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, waiting patiently for it until it receives the early and latter rain. 8 be patient! also stand-fast the hearts of ye! that the Parousia <3952> of the Lord is drawn near<1448>

1 Peter 4:7
Of all-things<3956> yet, the End<5056> is nigh<1448>.
Be sane<4993> then, and be sober<3529> into the prayers,

2 Peter 3:12
looking for and hastening the parousia of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat?

 

[Contenders Edge]

Good verses........
Weren't these verses written before 70AD?

That does not mean they were fulfilled in 70 A.D.

 

[jgr]

Then Irenaeus, by the above statement, ought to be disqualified in your eyes as a defender of the true faith since he does not claim that the Church has replaced the nation of Israel.

My eyes don't count, as I didn't live between the 2nd and 18th centuries.

No one who did live during that time disqualified him.

 

[Contenders Edge]

My eyes don't count, as I didn't live between the 2nd and 18th centuries.

No one who did live during that time disqualified him.

But there is one thing that can determine whether or not he qualifies and that is the Word of God and the best way to determine whether or not he qualifies as a true defender of the faith is if what he preached is consistent with the scriptures as it pertains to every essential doctrine and if there is a discrepancy between anything that Irenaeus had said and the scriptures, then Irenaeus, who is fallible, is wrong and the inerrant scriptures are right.

Granted that there may be a lot of truth in the writings of the generation that succeeded the Apostles (some were even direct disciples of them) but we have to remember that as informative as their writings are, their writings are not inspired. The scriptures, however, are inspired and that is why we can trust them and because we can trust the scriptures, we can have full confidence in the Gospel that the scriptures deliver.

 

[jgr]

But there is one thing that can determine whether or not he qualifies and that is the Word of God and the best way to determine whether or not he qualifies as a true defender of the faith is if what he preached is consistent with the scriptures as it pertains to every essential doctrine and if there is a discrepancy between anything that Irenaeus had said and the scriptures, then Irenaeus, who is fallible, is wrong and the inerrant scriptures are right.

Granted that there may be a lot of truth in the writings of the generation that succeeded the Apostles (some were even direct disciples of them) but we have to remember that as informative as their writings are, their writings are not inspired. The scriptures, however, are inspired and that is why we can trust them and because we can trust the scriptures, we can have full confidence in the Gospel that the scriptures deliver.

Correct, historical writings are not inspired.

Dispensational writings are also not inspired.

Historical writings regarding the Church have seventeen centuries of agreement within true Church orthodoxy.

Dispensational writings do not.

 

[Contenders Edge]

Correct, historical writings are not inspired.

Dispensational writings are also not inspired.

Historical writings regarding the Church have seventeen centuries of agreement within true Church orthodoxy.

Dispensational writings do not.

Preterist writings are no more or less inspired than Dispensationalist writings; not all writings regarding the Church are in agreement with true Church orthodoxy as would be made plain if we were to compare Catholic writings with Orthodox, Waldensian, Coptic, and even Protestant writings. Even Protestants were at odds with one another over such matters. (i.e. Arminius at odds with Calvin. Anabaptists at odds with Luther and Calvin. Pilgrims at odds with the Catholic Church and Church of England. Puritans at odds with the Pilgrims)

 

[jgr]

Preterist writings are no more or less inspired than Dispensationalist writings; not all writings regarding the Church are in agreement with true Church orthodoxy as would be made plain if we were to compare Catholic writings with Orthodox, Waldensian, Coptic, and even Protestant writings. Even Protestants were at odds with one another over such matters. (i.e. Arminius at odds with Calvin. Anabaptists at odds with Luther and Calvin. Pilgrims at odds with the Catholic Church and Church of England. Puritans at odds with the Pilgrims)

Which historical defenders of the true faith were at odds regarding the identity of the Church?

 

[Contenders Edge]

Which historical defenders of the true faith were at odds regarding the identity of the Church?

I already gave you a list of different groups within the faith that should serve as a starting point.

 

[jgr]

I already gave you a list of different groups within the faith that should serve as a starting point.

None of the historical defenders of the true faith were at odds regarding the identity of the Church.

They regarded it as the sole exclusive One People of God.

 

[Contenders Edge]

None of the historical defenders of the true faith were at odds regarding the identity of the Church.

They regarded it as the sole exclusive One People of God.

You mean to say that the Catholics have not been at odds with the Protestants regarding the identity of the Church among other things? Why was there even a reformation if that was the case? And what about the Waldensians? Why were they so heavily persecuted by the Catholic Church if they had been in agreement concerning the identity of the Church? And why did the Calvinists and Lutherans persecute the Anabaptists if there was such unity?

 

[BABerean2]

But why does John claim a thousand year reign before the day of the cited passage?

The word "reign" is not found in 2 Peter chapter 3.


.

 

[nolidad]

I identify the 1st century Jerusalem as the harlot/Great City in Revelation at this link.....

The Great City/Harlot/Queen Revelation chapts 17-19'''


Revelation 17:
16 And the ten Horns which thou saw and the Beast[from Sea?], these shall be hating the harlot,
and They shall be making Her desolate and naked,
and the fleshes of Her they shall be eating
and shall be burning Her in fire.
17 For the GOD gives into Their hearts to do the mind of Him, and to do One mind and to give Their kingdom to the Beast
until shall be being finished the words of the GOD.

Revelation 18:
18 And they cried, observing the smoke of Her burning, saying, "What is like to the great City?"
19 and they cast dust upon their heads, and cried, lamenting, weeping and mourning, saying,
"Woe! woe! the great City! in which are rich all those having ships in the sea, out of Her preciousness,
for to one hour was She was desolated.
========================
I am putting this up for a study, and this is my translation of these 3 chapters in Revelation concerning the great City/harlot/Babylon/Queen.

Ok so you believe jerusalem of AD 30-70 is not only that great city, but also the great harlot and mother of all harlots!

So now what about the seals, trumpets. bowls, the angel flying, the two witnesses, the beast and his mark. These are all history according to you, so I await your answer.

A woman when used symbolically in Scripture is always a symbol of religion. A harlot is a false religion. so how can Judaism be the mother of all harlots (false religions) when many false religions existed long before The Mosaic Law came to be and Judaism was born!