Replacement Theology Refuted

[ace of hearts]

Read it again. Any not circumcised were cut off including blood relatives.

How many times do you think I need to read it to change my position? The verse doesn't say or imply what you want it to say.

 

[ace of hearts]

Moses used Hebrews and Israel interchangeably.

So.... your point is.... all Hebrews are Israeli. Really? Abraham was a Hewbrew and not an Israeli.

 

[Grip Docility]

Col 3 doesn't mention Abraham. I didn't mention anything in Colossians or Eph 1:4 in my previous post. I certainly agree with and believe them as stated.

The passages you reference have nothing to do with Abraham.

If you read all my posts, I'm saying to to the doctrine promoted by the thread.

Paul writes that the Seed of Abraham is Jesus, in Galatians, and the promise to Abraham and his seeds is through Jesus, while the promises to Israel are different.

I’m distinguishing Israel, from the Body of Christ.

You did the same thing when you explained that Abraham wasn’t an Israelite.

Still not understanding what you are saying no to.

 

[ace of hearts]

It doesn't need to mention Abraham. the Rest of scripture pertaining to him is sufficient and then some.

Of course you can add in anything you want to support your opinion.

 

[Dave L]

Of course you can add in anything you want to support your opinion.

If you love Jesus, study his role as Israel in scripture and don't rob him of his glory.

 

[Dave L]

So.... your point is.... all Hebrews are Israeli. Really? Abraham was a Hewbrew and not an Israeli.

No, the Hebrews became the Israelites.

 

[Grip Docility]

Of course you can add in anything you want to support your opinion.

Paul wrote Colossians, Ephesians, Galatians and as early church understanding tends to collectively agree, 11 other New Testament epistles. Is it not okay to use all 14 of Paul’s epistles together when reading Paul, for deeper context?

 

[ace of hearts]

Paul writes that the Seed of Abraham is Jesus, in Galatians, and the promise to Abraham and his seeds is through Jesus, while the promises to Israel are different.

I’m distinguishing Israel, from the Body of Christ.

You did the same thing when you explained that Abraham wasn’t an Israelite.

Still not understanding what you are saying no to.

I'm not defending RT. RT is an erroneous doctrine trying to force the law on unsuspecting and unlearned people causing them to base their relationship with God on the law and not Jesus or the grace He paid for.

 

[Grip Docility]

I'm not defending RT. RT is an erroneous doctrine trying to force the law on unsuspecting and unlearned people causing them to base their relationship with God on the law and not Jesus or the grace He paid for.

Aha! Fair enough! Well, I’m not happy with RT either, so the details can be what they are, but I agree with you.

 

[ace of hearts]

Paul wrote Colossians, Ephesians, Galatians and as early church understanding tends to collectively agree, 11 other New Testament epistles. Is it not okay to use all 14 of Paul’s epistles together when reading Paul, for deeper context?

It sure is OK to use all Paul's works for truth (deeper context). All the works of Paul are in agreement. None of the works of Paul promote the concept the Church is Israel or replaced her.

 

[ace of hearts]

Aha! Fair enough! Well, I’m not happy wit RT either, so the details can be what they are, but I agree with you.

 

[Grip Docility]

No, the Hebrews became the Israelites.

Clarifying here... for curiosity’s sake,

So you agree that Israel pertains to Jacob’s offspring, and that’s where Hebrews became Israelites?

However, also, those Hebrews before Jacob weren’t Israelites.

 

[Grip Docility]

error repost

 

[Grip Docility]

If you love Jesus, study his role as Israel in scripture and don't rob him of his glory.

?

I don’t understand why you chose these words. Could you please clarify?

 

[Dave L]

?

I don’t understand why you chose these words. Could you please clarify?

You need to study the topic before commenting on it.

 

[Dave L]

Clarifying here... for curiosity’s sake,

So you agree that Israel pertains to Jacob’s offspring, and that’s where Hebrews became Israelites?

However, also, those Hebrews before Jacob weren’t Israelites.

According to Paul, in Isaac Abraham's seed (Christ) would be called.

 

[Dave L]

Clarifying here... for curiosity’s sake,

So you agree that Israel pertains to Jacob’s offspring, and that’s where Hebrews became Israelites?

However, also, those Hebrews before Jacob weren’t Israelites.

The Hebrews were the same people according to Moses but also called Israel in Egypt.

 

[Grip Docility]

You need to study the topic before commenting on it.

I’ve studied the topic to the point of madness, as the biblical Paul pun goes.

I was asking you what your thought process was when you made that statement. If you would like to leave it open ended, of course you have that right.

 

[Dave L]

I’ve studied the topic to the point of madness, as the biblical Paul pun goes.

I was asking you what your thought process was when you made that statement. If you would like to leave it open ended, of course you have that right.

You still do not know the basics of Jewish history or how things worked.

 

[Grip Docility]

You still do not know the basics of Jewish history or how things worked.

I assure you, by the grace of God, I do. Only by God. I haven’t, nor do I desire to explain how much I am blessed to understand. I remain perplexed that you used the phrase along the lines that someone was potentially stripping Christ of His due Glory, yet wont won’t further extrapolate “your” reason for saying this.

I was desiring to understand what you were inferring, specifically, so I didn’t read you wrong.

I am now gathering you are not willing to clarify your reasoning for making that statement. That is your choice.

I simply wanted to understand what you were saying, from your perspective. I have not indicated what I understand or do not understand at any point, thus far. I was simply attempting to understand your inference.